ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

22 October 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

You are hereby invited to attend a meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council which will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, The Castle, Bangor on Wednesday, 28 October 2015 commencing at 7.00pm.

Yours faithfully

Stephen Reid Chief Executive Ards and North Down Borough Council

A G E N D A

1. Prayer

2. Apologies

3. Declarations of Interest

4. Mayor’s Business

5. Minutes of Meeting of Council dated 23 September 2015 (Copy attached)

6. Minutes of Committees

6.1 Planning Committee dated 6 October 2015 (Copy attached)

6.2 Environment Committee dated 7 October 2015 (Copy attached)

6.3 Corporate Services Committee dated 13 October 2015 (Copy attached)

6.3.1 Human Resources Policies (Arising from Item 16 - Report attached)

6.4 Community and Wellbeing Committee dated 14 October 2015 (Copy attached)

6.5 Regeneration and Development Committee dated 15 October 2015 (Copy attached)

6.5.1 Theatre Provision Feasibility Study (Arising from Item 9 - Report attached)

6.6 Special Corporate Services Committee dated 19 October 2015 (Copy attached) 7. Requests for Deputations

7.1 Northern Ireland Electricity Networks (Copy correspondence dated 23 September 2015 attached)

7.2 Northern Ireland Water (Copy correspondence dated 23 September 2015 attached)

8. Request for Informal Briefing Session with Councillors

8.1 NI Federation of Housing Associations (Copy correspondence dated 18 September 2015 attached)

9. Consultation Documents

9.1 2021 Census – Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland (Comments to be submitted by 17 December 2015 - Copy information attached)

9.2 Consultation on the Review of Transport Eligibility Criteria (Comments to be submitted by 4 January 2016 - Copy information attached)

9.3 Independent Review of NILGA (Report attached)

10. Conferences, Invitations, etc.

10.1 Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) All Ireland Forum Autumn Seminar - 30 October 2015, Council Chamber, Town Hall, Dundalk, County Louth (Copy correspondence dated 15 October 2015 attached)

10.2 Armed Forces Community Covenant Conference (Report attached)

10.3 Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for NI - Annual Dinner (Report attached)

11. Resolution

11.1 Belfast City Council Re: Animal Cruelty (Copy correspondence dated 13 October 2015 attached)

12. Transfers of Rights of Burial

13. Sealing Documents

14. Remembrance Day – Arrangements for Members’ Attendance at Services across the Borough (Report attached)

15. Notice of Motions Status Report (Report attached)

16. Notices of Motion

16.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Dunne and Councillor Armstrong-Cotter

“That this Council notes that in 2016, Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II will mark her 90th Birthday. Given the powerful and positive contribution that Her Majesty has made through her very long years of public service across the United Kingdom and the affection with which she is held across the Borough, Officers develop a programme of Celebrations to ensure that this momentous occasion is marked and celebrated throughout the Borough”.

16.2 Notice of Motion submitted by Alderman Chambers

“That a report be brought back on the possibility of a fence being placed along the front of the council playground at Springwell Crescent, Groomsport in the interests of user safety”.

16.3 Notice of Motion submitted by Alderman Chambers

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

16.4 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Boyle

“That this Council notes the 2014 Employers For Childcare survey that indicated that 46% of parents in Northern Ireland reduced their working hours or left work due to a lack of affordable childcare; recognises that greater childcare provision would be a key catalyst in bolstering the economy, retaining a skilled workforce and improving the lives of working families; further notes that the Childcare Bill announced in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s July Budget will increase free preschool childcare entitlement for three- and four-year-olds to 30 hours a week in England; and agrees to write to the Northern Ireland Executive calling for the provision of an equal 30 hours of free childcare locally as part of a move towards the establishment of a universal childcare model”.

16.5 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Ferguson

“That this Council requests a report on extending the usage of Conway Square as a public area in Newtownards, to see how we can help and promote local traders, musicians and the like”.

16.6 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Ferguson

“That this Council reaffirms its commitments with the Royal British Legion with regards to wording on War Memorials and with what happens to the general surrounds of Cenotaphs”.

16.7 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillors Adair, Edmund and Thompson

“That this Council consults with the National Trust with a view to developing the car park at the entrance to the village of Greyabbey in the interests of Tourism and Regeneration”.

16.8 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillors Adair, Edmund and Thompson

“That this Council tasks Officers to bring forward a report identifying suitable projects to avail of funding under the NI Rural Development Programme for the upgrade of Children's Play Parks”.

16.9 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillors Adair, Edmund and Thompson

“That this Council tasks Officers to bring forward a report on upgrading current tennis courts to Multi Use Games areas with a view to applying for funding under the NI Rural Development Programme”.

***IN CONFIDENCE***

17. Business Cases – Voluntary Severance (Report attached)

18. Award of Tender for the Refurbishment of Areas at Bangor Sportsplex (Report attached)

19. Event Proposal (Report to follow)

Circulated for Information

(a) NI Water - Sewer Rehabilitation Programme – Comber (Copy correspondence attached) (b) Letter of Congratulations from Resident regarding Reduction in Parking fees, Conway Square and New facilities at Londonderry Park (Copy correspondence attached) (c) Serco Global Services - Autumn 2015 Edition of ‘Yourscene’ Bringing your Local Government and Public Sector News, Insight and Comment (Copy correspondence attached) (d) SEHSCT Public Meeting held on 19 August 2015 (Copy Minutes attached) (e) Transport NI Southern Division: Proposed Amendments to Speed Limits (Copy correspondence attached) - Installation of 50mph Speed Limit on A2 Groomsport By Pass/ Donaghadee Road, Groomsport - Reduction of existing 40mph Speed Limit on A2 Warren Road, Donaghadee - Extension of existing 40mph Speed Limit on A21 Bangor Road, Newtownards (f) Supporting Communities NI 41st Edition of E-Zine launched on 5 October 2015 (Copy attached) (g) Keepmoat Annual Report for the Year Ended 31 March 2015 (Copy correspondence attached) (h) Public Appointments - Department of Education (DE) to NI Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) Board of Directors (Copy details attached) (i) DHSSPS – Implementation of Nursing and Midwifery Revalidation in Northern Ireland (Copy correspondence attached)

MEMBERSHIP OF ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

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

ITEM 5

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council was held in the Town Hall, The Castle, Bangor on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 commencing at 7.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: The Mayor (Alderman Graham)

Other Members: Deputy Mayor Councillor McClean (7.52pm) Aldermen: Carson Chambers Gibson Girvan Henry Keery McDowell M Smith

Councillors: Adair Fletcher Allen Gilmour Anderson Kennedy (7.24pm) Armstrong Martin Armstrong-Cotter McIlveen Barry Menagh Boyle Muir Brooks Robinson Cathcart Smart Cooper T Smith Cummings Thompson Dunne Walker Edmund Wilson Ferguson

Officers: Chief Executive, Director of Community and Wellbeing, Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning, Director of Environment, Director of Organisational Development and Administration, Head of Finance, Democratic Services Manager and Democratic Services Officer

1. PRAYER

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

NOTED.

1

C.23.9.15

2. APOLOGIES

Alderman Irvine and Councillors Leslie & Roberts. Councillor Kennedy (for lateness)

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Councillor Muir declared an interest in Item 22 – Land at Former Bus Station, Donaghadee, as an employee of Translink.

NOTED.

4. MAYOR’S BUSINESS

The Mayor informed members that he had received notification that Councillor Armstrong-Cotter would be stepping down from her standing committees as part of her maternity leave. Alderman Gibson would take her place on the Environment Committee and Councillor Kennedy would replace her on the Regeneration and Development Committee. Those appointments would run until February 2016 when Councillor Armstrong-Cotter would resume those positions.

NOTED.

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 September.

The Mayor took the opportunity to highlight some events, those being the Signing of the Armed Forces Community Covenant which had taken place the previous week in the Town Hall, Bangor and been very well organised and attended. He expressed thanks also to the Deputy Mayor, (Councillor McClean) and Alderman Bill Keery, the Council’s Armed Forces Champion.

Continuing, the Mayor then referred to the Battle of Britain 75 event which had also taken place the previous week at Ards Airfield which again had been very well organised with positive feedback received from many of the VIP guests. He expressed his thanks to the Events Team and all those involved with the organisation of the event.

NOTED.

2

C.23.9.15

6. MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 26 AUGUST 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Councillor Robinson, that the minutes be signed as a correct record.

Item 29.2 - Page 31 - Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Martin and Councillor Cathcart

Councillor Muir referred to the last paragraph on Page 31 and asked that the minutes be amended to read ‘Councillor Muir noted how £1/2 billion of funding …..’ and a further amendment ‘…the fact that KWC had not even submitted a claim for funding…..’.

NOTED.

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

7. MINUTES OF COMMITTEES

7.1. Planning Committee dated 1 September 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

Item 4.3 Application No. X/2013/0259/F – Lands 322m SE of 7 Lough Cowey Road, Portaferry – Full permission is sought for the erection of a single wind turbine

Alderman Gibson proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that on Page 14 the first paragraph be amended to read ‘The Vice Chairman (Councillor Dunne) invited Councillor Adair……’ as Alderman Gibson had declared an interest in the item and left the Chamber at that time.

AGREED.

Costings Association with Legal Advice to be Sought

Councillor Boyle expressed concern with the regular difference of opinion between members of the Planning Committee and the planning officers and with the subsequent legal advice to be sought at a cost to the Council. He referred to the forthcoming Planning Workshop and welcomed it, particularly as Planning Officers were deemed to be professionals in the field of planning. He expressed the view that he was not so sure the committee should always be seeking legal advice.

The Mayor reminded members at this stage that minutes were presented for accuracy only and that this was a delegated function.

3

C.23.9.15

Councillor McIlveen noted that Councillor Boyle was not a member of the Planning Committee and therefore was unaware of the intricacies of the meeting, therefore his comments were unnecessary. He added however that any Member did have the opportunity to sit in the public gallery for the duration of the meeting.

The Mayor stated that the Council’s committee structure was not up for debate at this stage and suggested that if members felt it should be revisited that it could be done so via a Notice of Motion.

Councillor Muir commented that at last month’s Council meeting a similar debate had taken place in respect of the Planning Committee and reminded members they were on the agenda for the consideration of accuracy only. He added that the Committee also had full delegated powers.

NOTED.

Item 4.1 Application No. W/2014/0432/F – Lands to rear of 9 and 11 Raglan Road, Bangor – Full permission is sought for 2 detached dwellings

Alderman Chambers stated that in the interests of accuracy on Page 5, paragraph 2, Mr Robinson should be replaced with Mr Donaldson.

NOTED.

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

7.2. Environment Committee dated 2 September 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

Councillor Boyle proposed, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the minutes be adopted.

Item 7 - Christmas Lighting Schemes 2015 – File 65281

Councillor Martin asked that the following be inserted into the minutes ‘ Councillor Martin asked what provision for Christmas Lighting in Donaghadee had been made given the schemes being proposed for Bangor, Holywood and Newtownards at additional expense’.

(Councillor Kennedy entered the meeting at this stage – 7.24pm)

Councillor T Smith asked why Donaghadee had not been included in the Christmas Lighting Scheme for 2015.

In response the Director of Environment stated that the scheme in Donaghadee was a relatively new scheme but agreed that it should have been included in the minutes.

4

C.23.9.15

Councillor T Smith proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Brooks, that Donaghadee was considered for a Christmas Lighting scheme on the same basis as Comber and Holywood.

Councillor Brooks referred to the disgraceful contribution made to the Donaghadee Christmas lighting scheme by the legacy Council. He expressed his support for the proposal adding that Donaghadee had been favourably featured in a number of local press articles.

Councillor Menagh expressed concern with the proposal for an artificial tree in Newtownards.

The Mayor informed members that he would deal with the Donaghadee matter in the first instance.

Alderman Gibson informed members that Ards Borough Council’s Christmas Lighting Scheme had operated on a pound for pound basis and agreed that Donaghadee should be considered in conjunction with other towns.

Alderman McDowell confirmed that Ards Borough Council had operated this pound for pound Christmas lighting scheme, which effectively supported those who supported themselves. He recalled that a previous issue had been where to stop putting Christmas lights and that was normally decided on the basis of those areas where traders had not invested in the lighting scheme. He commented that the Council did not have an open cheque book for Christmas lighting schemes and therefore a policy on the issue was required with definitive criteria in place for such schemes.

The Mayor suggested that the matter go back to Committee for consideration.

Councillor T Smith stated that Public Realm works were an issue in the town.

Councillor Boyle commented that a policy could not be made ‘on the hoof’ and agreed that the matter should be referred back to the Committee for costings analysis.

Councillor Muir, while appreciative of members’ frustrations, stated that it was important to ensure that a proper budget was in place for such expenditure and to show prudence.

Councillor Menagh commented that a Christmas lighting scheme for Comber had been assessed on a pound for pound basis.

Councillor Martin stated that in respect of the issue in Donaghadee that the Council should be listening to those traders who had suffered as a result of the Public Realm works. He added that incentives, such as the Christmas lighting scheme, would be very much welcomed.

Councillor Boyle commented that both legacy Councils had differing arrangements in place in respect of Christmas lighting schemes. He expressed disappointment

5

C.23.9.15 however that members had failed to acknowledge the most important thing in the minutes, that being the potential saving to be made of £150,000 in respect of a recycling initiative.

At this stage Councillor Walker agreed that the matter should go back to Committee for consideration, in tandem with how to bring tourists and financial incentives to get people back into the town.

Echoing those comments, Alderman Chambers noted that a Christmas lighting scheme would be met with great enthusiasm from those traders who had been inconvenienced as a result of the Public Realm works. He acknowledged that budgets had already been set from which there should be no deviation. He too agreed that the matter should go back to Committee in order to ensure that Donaghadee got equal treatment.

In summing up, Councillor T Smith asked why the members felt the matter needed to go back to Committee and if so would all schemes be referred back also. He noted that Holywood was getting further expenditure due to Public Realm works as stated in the report.

Councillor T Smith asked for a Recorded Vote.

On the amendment being put to the meeting, with 22 voting For, 9 voting Against, 5 Abstaining and 4 Absent, it was DECLARED CARRIED.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Brooks, that Donaghadee is considered for a Christmas Lighting scheme on the same basis as Comber and Holywood.

Councillor T Smith having requested a recorded vote, the voting was as follows:-

FOR (22) AGAINST (9) ABSTAINING (5) ABSENT 4) Aldermen Aldermen Aldermen Alderman Carson Girvan Gibson Irvine Chambers McDowell Graham Councillors Henry Councillors Keery Leslie M Smith Adair Councillors McClean Councillors Anderson Dunne Roberts Allen Armstrong Kennedy Armstrong-Cotter Barry Boyle Muir Brooks Walker Cathcart Wilson Cooper Cummings Edmund Ferguson Fletcher Gilmour

6

C.23.9.15

Martin Mcllveen Menagh Robinson Smart Smith T Thompson

At this stage Councillor Menagh sought some clarity around the proposal for an artificial Christmas tree in Newtownards.

In response, the Director of Environment confirmed that the minutes were accurate and officers would explore the provision of that type of tree which he added were successfully used throughout Europe. He added that both sustainability and cost were favourable factors, adding that it was becoming increasingly difficult to source well shaped real trees.

Councillor Menagh expressed the view that Conway Square should not have the first artificial tree in the Borough and added that Christmas was real and not artificial.

Supporting the Director, Alderman Gibson noted that previously real trees in Comber had had bits added to them and therefore he was content for investigations to be made into artificial trees, which could ultimately save money.

NOTED.

(Councillor Mcllveen entered the meeting at this stage – 7.50pm)

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

(Councillor McClean entered the meeting at this stage – 7.52pm)

7.3. Regeneration and Development Committee dated 3 September 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

Item 3 - Ards and North Down Village Plans

Councillor Boyle asked when the deadline was for the Village Plans.

The Mayor indicated that a report on the matter was on the agenda for discussion later in the meeting.

Councillor Thompson welcomed the incoming Village Plans particularly for those villages throughout the Ards Peninsula.

NOTED.

7

C.23.9.15

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

7.4. Corporate Services Committee dated 8 September 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

Alderman Carson proposed, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the minutes be adopted subject to the withdrawal of Item 15 Human Resources Policies Revision due to further Trade Union consultation.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Carson, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the minutes be adopted subject to the withdrawal of Item 15 Human Resources Policies Revision due to further Trade Union consultation.

7.5. Community and Wellbeing Committee dated 9 September 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

Councillor Armstrong proposed, seconded by Councillor Menagh that the minutes be adopted.

Item 10 - Good Relations Bonfire Monitoring 2015-2016 – File GREL 242

Councillor Armstrong proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Anderson that the following be included in the minutes: ‘Councillor Boyle raised concerns about the number of tricolours being burned at events, particularly in North Down. Councillor Cooper noted that his community perceived the tricolour as an IRA rag and Councillor Menagh agreed it was seen as a foreign flag connected to the IRA’.

(Councillor McIlveen entered the meeting at this stage – 7.56pm)

Councillor Boyle stated that he had been left wondering why important information relating to the Good Relations Report which he had raised that up to 50 tricolours had appeared on bonfires in the Ards and North Down Borough had not appeared in the minutes. He also noted that there was no reference to what had been said as part of the process in compiling the report. He questioned how Good Relations could be promoted by the Council if the minutes only highlighted that everything was rosy in respect of those cultural events when in actual fact that was not the case. Continuing, Councillor Boyle said that he had only spoken his mind and he expected those comments to be respected and queried the reasons why they had not been included in the minutes. He stated that he was proud to be Irish. He added that he would not alter what he was, what his culture was and what his nationality was and furthermore he would not be denigrated in the Council Chamber. He asked where the views were of all those living in the Ards Peninsula in the report and particularly those who were not happy with bonfires. He also referred to items which had been placed on bonfires including the Irish national flag and election posters of his party colleagues, and asked if that had made it a great night’s entertainment which everyone had enjoyed. Continuing he stated that the Council should be transparent, open and honest in its minutes and added that while he was sure his comments had

8

C.23.9.15 been taken down they appeared to have disappeared between there and now. Continuing he stated that whether minutes were good or bad both hands should be kept on the table and everything kept in the minutes.

Councillor Martin suggested that a degree of perspective was taken on this matter and added that members were more than happy for minutes to be corrected. He added that he did not believe there was any hidden agenda on this occasion and indeed comments he had made about a positive experience enjoyed with his family had also been omitted from the minutes.

(Alderman Chambers left the meeting at this stage – 8.01pm)

At this stage Councillor McIlveen clarified that Councillor Boyle was alleging that he had been denigrated as an Irish Citizen and had made an allegation against members of staff. He reminded members that they all had to abide by a Code of Conduct and suggested that Councillor Boyle should clarify his comments.

Councillor Anderson expressed disappointment on hearing both Councillor Martin and Councillor McIlveen’s comments. He stated that the reality was that a smoke screen had been created to take away from the real issue which was that the Council had walked away from its obligation in respect of Good Relations. He noted that the comments had been made at the meeting, and appeared to have been considered offensive, and then omitted from the minutes.

(Alderman Chambers entered the meeting at this stage – 8.05pm)

Councillor Menagh rose in support of the comments he had made and indicated that he stood over them. He stated that he lived in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland was part of that. Continuing he expressed the view that the tricolour flag was used now to bury republicans and he stood over everything he had said. He added that bonfires were part of his culture and would not be going away.

(Alderman Keery left the meeting at this stage – 8.05pm)

At this stage Councillor Cooper referred to Councillor Anderson’s comments about verbatim minutes and indicated that he stood over the comments which he had made. Continuing he stated that he along with many others within his community associated the tricolour with IRA funerals and now found themselves looking dangerously over a precipice with a vacuum which had deliberately been created by republicans. He added that he held his culture dear and had fought for Queen and country and would do so again, if required. Councillor Cooper then referred to remarks made by Gerry Adams about equality and using that as a Trojan horse against the orange ‘b’s’ . He referred to the parades in his community which had been stopped with people protesting against them with RPG’s and automatic fire being rewarded. He then referred to the allegation that the Union flag was representative of the UVF and stated that the UVF and other such organisations had their own flags. Continuing he reiterated that the Irish tricolour had been used to bury republicans and therefore was considered by many to have been hijacked by the IRA.

9

C.23.9.15

(Councillors Anderson and McIlveen left the meeting at this stage – 8.06pm)

Continuing, Councillor Cooper referred to Councillor Boyle’s allegation that he was being denigrated and indicated that he did not deny him his right to be Irish as equally his culture should not be denied. He added that his culture was not something which was up for sale. However he stated that it would seem violence did pay with IRA currently in power in Government, but he was totally opposed to any form of terrorism.

(Alderman Keery entered the meeting at this stage – 8.08pm)

Councillor Cooper then commented that he too frequently spoke at length on various matters and did not expect everything to be written down.

(Councillors Anderson and McIlveen entered the meeting at this stage – 8.10pm)

Councillor Muir indicated that he was appalled by the tenure of the debate and had found it quite upsetting. Continuing he stated that he considered himself both Irish and British and in his view the comments which had been made were unacceptable and showed no respect of either culture. He added that if he had been a member of the committee he would have asked to have been disassociated from such comments.

Councillor Kennedy stated that the issue was whether or not comments had been recorded in the minutes and that debate should not have been allowed to develop into what was now being discussed. Continuing he noted that Councillor Boyle had made serious allegations against Council officers and therefore he agreed with his colleague’s observation about the set of comments. It would appear that everyone had contributed to that debate and questioned how the Alliance Party hoped to build on good relations given the comments their party members had made and referred to the debate which had previously taken place at Belfast City Council in respect of the flying of the Union Flag at City Hall, Belfast. He added that the tricolour had been hijacked by nationalists who stated that the green represented nationalists, the orange represented Orangemen and the white represented peace. Councillor Kennedy suggested that clearly there was a lack of understanding by some and suggested that there was a need for mutual respect of all cultures adding that perhaps in the run up to Halloween the ‘penny for the guy’ should cease as it could be suggested that placing Guy Fawkes on top of a bonfire was effectively burning a Catholic.

Councillor Barry encouraged members to get back to reality that certain comments made had not been included in the minutes. He referred to Councillor Armstrong’s statement which she had asked to be included in the minutes and agreed that no flag should be referred to as a rag.

The Chief Executive referred to Councillor Boyle’s comments stating that he had raised an issue regarding staff which must be considered ‘In Committee’. He then went on to clarify that as members would be aware minutes were not verbatim and instead should provide a flavour of debate and be general in their nature. He also

10

C.23.9.15 recalled that the issue had previously been considered by the Shadow Council which had decided that minutes should provide an essence of debate as it recognised that during lengthy debates it would be impossible to ensure that all comments were included. The process was that all minutes came to the Council meeting in draft format for adoption and provided members with a final opportunity to make amendments and inclusions for accuracy purposes. He added that during Committee meetings members could ask at any time for their comments to be recorded in the minutes. The Chief Executive also reminded members that all committee meetings were held in public and therefore there were no attempts to hide any facts or debate. In summing up he reiterated that the matter relating to staff raised by Councillor Boyle must be considered ‘In Committee’ as he would have serious concerns if that was not adhered to.

The Mayor commented that the meeting and debate which had taken place did not reflect the Borough he lived in, adding that in his role as Mayor he had experienced good relations with all. He acknowledged that tempers would flare and there would be tensions and added that he was unsure whether or not Councillor Boyle meant to direct his comments at Council staff. He asked Councillor Boyle if he wished to make a further comment or wait to have the matter discussed ‘In Committee’.

At this stage Councillor McIlveen commented that given the seriousness of the allegations made against staff the matter should be discussed ‘In Committee’.

The Mayor agreed that it should be discussed ‘In Committee’.

Councillor Cooper also agreed that the matter should be considered ‘In Committee’.

Councillor Muir sought clarification on the legal basis for the matter to be discussed ‘In Committee’.

In response the Mayor stated that as staff had been referred to during the debate the matter should be considered ‘In Committee’.

Councillor Muir asked if a vote would be taken on that recommendation.

The Mayor replied no, as he had made the decision for the matter to be considered ‘In Committee’.

Councillor Muir clarified that if it was the Mayor’s decision to discuss the matter ‘In Committee’.

At this stage the Chief Executive stated that as the matter was staff related it must be discussed ‘In Committee’, adding that he would have serious concerns if that was not the case.

NOTED.

11

C.23.9.15

Item 4 – Road Safety Query at Cloughey Playground

In the interests of accuracy Councillor Cooper asked that the recommendation be amended to read ‘that the Council, in the absence of movement from the Department of Regional Development, seeks an initial report from the Director be presented to outline the appropriate protocol and legal parameters to execute this project and approves expenditure to install a crash barrier in the interests of safety at the children’s play area, Main Road, Cloughey’.

The Director of Community and Wellbeing confirmed that a report would be brought back to Committee in due course.

On the same issue Councillor Adair referred to the last paragraph on page 7 and asked that the following insertion be made: ‘…..Throughout that period of time, the consistent lobbying had been undertaken by the local community for a reduction …’.

AGREED.

Item 9 – Multi Annual Arts Grants – File CG10685

The Chief Executive asked that an amendment was made in respect of the Multi Annual Arts Funding Criteria. Previously there had been an eligibility criterion for applicant groups to have been in existence for four years and that had subsequently been reduced to two years.

AGREED.

(Councillors Cathcart, McIlveen and T Smith left the meeting at this stage – 8.26pm)

Item 20 – Burial Charges and Boundary Change Considerations – File BG15167

Councillor Fletcher referred to Part I of the recommendation stating that the approach taken by the legacy Council should remain in place in respect of this matter, particularly as it would only affect a small number of rural families in comparison to the 173 urban families also affected.

(Councillor McIlveen entered the meeting at this stage – 8.30pm)

The Mayor noted that as the item had been considered ‘In Committee’ that it be deferred to the ‘In Committee’ section of this meeting.

AGREED.

RESOLVED THAT the minutes be adopted, subject to the above amendments. Further that Item 10 - Good Relations Bonfire Monitoring 2015-2016 and Item 20 – Burial Charges and Boundary Change Considerations be dealt with later in the meeting ‘In Committee’.

12

C.23.9.15

7.5.1. Matters Arising – Antisocial Behaviour at Conlig Playpark

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 11 September 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that following on from the Community and Wellbeing Committee on 9 September, the following notice of motion was moved and agreed.

‘That this Council notes with concern the on-going anti-social behaviour at Conlig playpark and asks for officers to bring back a report to include costings for potential fencing to be erected along properties adjoining the Conlig playpark’.

The Councils community safety team had been dealing with a complaint about antisocial behaviour at the play park, which appeared to be restricted to one property in particular being affected. The complaint concerned youths gathering in the park and throwing items into the complainant’s property, and sometimes climbing the wall to enter the complainant’s property.

At a site meeting in response to this complaint attended by Alderman Irvine, the Council’s Parks Superintendent and a member of the community safety team, it was suggested that the erection of a fence in at this location would have the potential to resolve the matter.

Following the committee meeting on 9 September, a further site visit was carried out on 11 September to allow an estimation of costs to be made should a fence be agreed to be erected. The area of concern was at the back of the play park where the low wall and fence was allowing youths to climb over into gardens adjoining the site to take a shortcut or to retrieve objects as shown in the photograph below.

13

C.23.9.15

The estimated costs were between £2,650 for a 2.4 metre and £2,800 for a three metre high paladin fence, of the same type already installed on the other side of the park. The fence could be erected on the inside of the existing wooden fence and wall as shown in the above picture.

RECOMMENDED that a fence was erected in front of the existing wall and wooden fence subject to agreement with the occupants of the adjoining properties affected on the height that would be acceptable to them.

(Alderman McDowell, Councillors Menagh, McIlveen and Smart left the meeting at this stage – 8.34pm)

Councillor Dunne proposed, seconded by Alderman Carson, that the recommendation be adopted.

Alderman Carson sought clarification that there was money in the budget.

Alderman Chambers referred to the legacy North Down Borough Council which had adopted the approach of not erecting fences between Council and non-Council owned property. He expressed the view that it was up to the owners to secure their own property adding that if antisocial behaviour was occurring on the streets the Council should not be expected to build a fence. Continuing, Alderman Chambers stated that he had looked at the situation at Conlig and noted that it appeared to be an issue with a garden. He commented that to agree to spend £3,000 on the erection of a fence would only open the floodgates for similar requests. He indicated that he would be bringing forward a Notice of Motion on a similar matter.

(Alderman McDowell entered the meeting at this stage – 8.40pm)

Continuing, Alderman Chambers reiterated that owners of private property should take their own remedial actions and expressed caution as the Council could be inundated with similar requests. He urged members to think carefully about the issue.

(Councillors Menagh and McIlveen entered the meeting at this stage – 8.41pm)

Councillor Cooper commented that he had brought forward the Notice of Motion about a similar matter at a play park in Ballygowan. He appreciated the concern which had been raised adding that those youths in Ballygowan had subsequently entered into dialogue which was proving successful.

(Councillor Smart entered the meeting at this stage – 8.42pm)

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Dunne, seconded by Alderman Carson, with 29 voting For, 1 voting Against, that the recommendation be adopted.

14

C.23.9.15

8. REQUEST FOR DEPUTATION

8.1. The Rowan

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy letter dated 11 August 2015 from The Rowan, Northern Ireland’s Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) requesting to address the Council to provide a briefing of its work to date following its opening on 7 May 2013.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Ferguson, THAT the Council accedes to the request and that the deputation be heard by the appropriate committee.

8.2. Include Youth

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence dated 17 September 2015 from Include Youth requesting permission to make a deputation to the Council about its work and opportunities in the many career prospects within the Borough.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Ferguson, THAT the Council accedes to the request and that the deputation be heard by the appropriate committee.

(Councillor Dunne left the meeting at this stage – 8.40pm)

9. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

9.1. Department of Justice – Code of Practice Issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

(Comments to be submitted no later than 2 November 2015)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Consultation Document from the Department of Justice detailing consultation on the three draft codes of practice issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).

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

9.2. Northern Ireland Assembly, Committee for Social Development – Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Bill

(Comments to be submitted no later than 6 October 2015)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Consultation Document from the Committee for Social Development detailing the Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Bill which was formally introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 7 September 2015.

ALSO PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 14 September 2015 from Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill was formally introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 7 September 2015.

15

C.23.9.15

The Committee for Social Development had requested written submissions to the Bill by 6 October 2015 including response to specific clauses. Subject to approval by the Assembly at Second Stage, the Bill would then be referred to the Committee for Social Development which had responsibility for the Committee Stage of the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill was to enable better regulation of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO), by streamlining the definition, introducing licensing, promoting effective housing management and clarifying the existing law. The eleven Local Councils in Northern Ireland would be responsible for those functions.

The new proposals to improve upon the current HMO Registration legislation would (among other things) introduce:

 A new HMO definition;  a licensing scheme;  a fit and proper person test;  new enforcement powers;  new powers to issue a prohibition notice; and  powers to allow information sharing to assist in the identification and regulation of HMOs.

All of those improvements were welcome and necessary for the protection of tenants in HMO’s.

When the legislation came into force and Councils were responsible, local knowledge could be used to identify HMO’s (Environmental Health Officers working in Housing were aware of HMO’s which had been referred to the current NIHE HMO unit in Coleraine).

Implications of the Bill for Ards and North Down Borough Council. Figures obtained in 2013 from the Department of Social Development indicated that there were approximately 216 registered HMO’s in the Ards and North Down area.

District Council Categorised as HMOs Belfast City 4151 North Down and Ards 216 Antrim and Newtownabbey 299 Lisburn City and Castlereagh District 47 Newry City, Mourne and Down 170 Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon District 188 Mid and East Antrim District 174 Causeway Coast and Glens District 789 Mid Ulster District 172 Derry City and Strabane 526 Fermanagh and Omagh 138 Totals 6870

The vast majority of those were in Bangor, with smaller, but significant, numbers in Newtownards and Holywood. A few others were scattered throughout the Borough.

16

C.23.9.15

In 2012 the NIHE who currently operated the HMO registration scheme indicated that the number of registered HMO’s should be at least a third larger based on their own evidence in relation to housing benefit applications. Accordingly, it was probable that there were currently 300-350 HMO’s within the Ards and North Down area of which perhaps 100 remained unregulated. Therefore, there was going to be a requirement for significant officer time to ensure that tenants in HMO’s were protected by the new legislation.

The EXPLANATORY AND FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM accompanying the bill indicated that:-

FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF THE BILL

It was not anticipated that the Bill would give rise to any significant additional expenditure.

Figures obtained at 2013 indicated that a potential income of £26,000 would be realised in Ards and North Down, as a result of regulating the official numbers of HMO’s mentioned above from a total potential income of £673,000 across all of Northern Ireland (around half this sum would be realised in the Belfast Area) The current charges for HMO registration as follows.

3 occupants £375 4 occupants £500 5 occupants £625 6 occupants £750 7 occupants £875 8 occupants £1,000 9 occupants £1,125 10 occupants or more £1,250

Regulation 84 of the new Bill allowed fees to be set by the Department. It was as yet unclear whether the fees listed above would be increased.

Welfare Reform Implications

Proposed welfare reform in Northern Ireland would place restrictions on the amount of Housing Benefit that individuals would be able to claim. Potentially, this may mean a greater demand for rooms in shared houses and an increase in the number of HMO’s in the borough.

Conclusion

The improvements to the regulatory system in relation to HMO’s were to be welcomed and should serve to ensure greater protection for those who lived in HMO’s and those who may live in HMO’s in the future.

The charges currently levied would not enable the Council to self-finance the legislative regime particularly as it was more exhaustive and involved than previously

17

C.23.9.15 and there were potentially more HMO’s that required regulation than were currently regulated.

The current regime administered by the NIHE from offices in Belfast and Coleraine was not currently self-financing and it would be assumed that portions of this excess budget would be transferred to Councils to enable the function to be effectively administered.

RECOMMENDED that the Council responds to the Committee for Social Development consultation with the conclusions drawn above, welcoming the enhanced protections for the public included in the Bill and requesting further clarification of the financial implications for the Council.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Muir, that the Consultation Document be noted.

(Alderman Carson left the meeting at this stage – 8.46pm)

9.3. Department for Employment and Learning – New Further Education Strategy for Northern Ireland

(Comments to be submitted no later than 2 October 2015)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Consultation Document from the Department for Employment and Learning detailing the New Further Education Strategy for Northern Ireland and the commitments which would establish the future direction of Further Education in Northern Ireland.

The Mayor suggested that perhaps each of the political parties may wish to respond to the Consultation themselves.

RESOLVED that the Consultation Document be noted.

10. SETTING BUDGETS AND DISTRICT RATES FOR 2016/17 – FILE FIN44

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 23 September 2015 from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that the Council was required by the Local Government Finance Act to prepare its budgets and district rates in the context of a Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). The plan was prepared in line with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Prudential Code which required expenditure plans to be affordable, prudent and sustainable.

The Rates Regulations 2007 required the Council to strike its district rates for the next following year by the 15 February.

Sections 11 and 13 allowed the Council to establish sub-committees.

Proposed Rate Setting Process for 2016/17

18

C.23.9.15

As with the first financial year it was proposed to establish a Rates Sub-Committee (terms of reference set out in appendix A). The table below set out a similar committee process as for 2015/16 for reviewing the strategic issues affecting the Council’s budgets and district rates. This would commence in detail with Members in mid-October and continue through to February 2015.

Proposed Rate Setting Process for 2016/17 (with indicative dates) 15 Oct 15 Rates Sub-Committee Detailed review of: a) internal and external pressures; b) projected outturns for 2015/16; and c) the impact on the level of reserves. Members’ expectations.

16 Dec 15 Rates Sub-Committee Discuss and finalise options for rates position taking into account the Medium Term Financial Plan, Capital Financing Strategy and Treasury Management Strategy.

19 Jan 16 Special Corporate Services Recommendation to Council on District Committee Rate for 2016/17 and Medium Term Financial Plan

9 Feb 16 Council Meeting Agree the District rate for 2016/17

RECOMMENDED that:

1. Council form a Rates Sub-Committee for the purposes of undertaking the work in setting the district rates for 2016/17 and making recommendation to the Corporate Services Committee.

2. Members note the report on the rate setting process for 2016/17 and agree the timetable for reporting as outlined above.

Councillor Muir suggested that rather than form a new Sub-Committee, that instead special meetings of the Corporate Services Committee be convened to undertake the work in setting the district rates for 2016/17.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Muir, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that special meetings of the Corporate Services Committee be convened to undertake the work in setting the district rates for 2016/17.

11. COMMUNITY PLANNING – THE BIG CONVERSATION – FILE 700028

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 10 September 2015 from the Chief Executive stating that members would be aware of the Council’s responsibilities with

19

C.23.9.15 regard to the preparation and publishing of a Borough-wide Community Plan, along with its partners.

The BIG CONVERSATION was a concept to be used to encourage the community to engage with the Council and its partners about the Ards and North Down area with regard to the Community Plan.

Community planning was a new function for the Council and the legislation required the Council and its statutory partners to produce a long term plan for the area with extensive community input and consultation. In order to generate enthusiasm and excitement within the community the Council’s engagement activities would be marketed by encouraging people to join Ards and North Down’s BIG CONVERSATION about community planning.

The BIG CONVERSATION would include initiatives such as:

- Postcard commentary to give people a platform to let us know what they liked and disliked about the Ards and North Down area and what issues they thought should be prioritised in the community plan - Questionnaires (online and hardcopy) - Events and workshops - Newsletter, web and social media presence - Consultation initiatives - Reports to keep people informed of progress and how the Council was using the data and information they had fed back

Where appropriate it would be beneficial for Community Planning to utilise the contacts Elected Members had within local communities. That may include inviting Elected Members to participate in BIG CONVERSATION events, especially if they were in a relevant DEA. Encouraging constituents to complete BIG CONVERSATION feedback postcards, to help identify the priority issues the Community Plan should seek to address, would also be beneficial.

To maximise exposure to the BIG CONVERSATION the Community Planning Manager would promote the postcard commentary initiative at events within each of the Council’s DEAs, as already organised by the Community Development team. Those were scheduled for September and October. Participants would be encouraged to complete A5 postcards with feedback on what they liked and disliked about the Ards and North Down area. They would also be asked for their opinion on the issues they thought the Community Plan needed to prioritise. Postcards could be completed at the event as well as online. Postcards were confidential but participants were asked for the name of their nearest town or settlement to allow for more accurate analysis of the feedback provided.

From November postcards would also be available from Council buildings that were publically accessible. That included:

- Town Hall, Bangor - Church Street, Newtownards - Ards Arts Centre, Conway Square

20

C.23.9.15

- Tower House, Bangor - Ards Visitor Centre, Bangor

Collection style post-boxes for the postcards would be on permanent display in the two main civic buildings and would rotate around other locations.

The BIG CONVERSATION postcard commentary campaign would also visit all libraries and sports facilities within the Borough via a published schedule.

To keep people who had participated in the BIG CONVERSATION engaged with the development of the Community Plan, and for them to see progress being made, the initiative would be supported by an ongoing engagement campaign. Via a digital engagement campaign the key issues the public would like to see addressed would be communicated and then further consulted on. The BIG CONVERSATION was going to have a twitter presence @ANDbigconversation and use #myvoicemyAND

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the plans for the BIG CONVERSATION community engagement programme.

Councillor Smart referred to the proposed use of feedback postcards, and asked if they would replicate the online questionnaires.

In response, the Chief Executive confirmed that the feedback postcards would be hard copies of the online questionnaire.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Armstrong, seconded by Councillor Cummings, that the recommendation be adopted.

12. BANGOR SHARED SPACE – A REQUEST FOR SUPPORT (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 18 September 2015 from the Chief Executive stating that a letter had been received from the Bangor Shared Space organisation (copy attached) with regard to their bid to gain ownership and use of the former Courthouse building in Bangor. The request was for the Council to provide a letter of ‘in principle’ support for the Bangor Shared Space Courthouse Project to assist in the consideration by the Department of Justice (DoJ) of a business case from them.

The letter set out in detail the background to the company, which had charitable status. It was among a small number of groups selected by the Development Trust Northern Ireland as part of the DSD’s programme to participate in the Community Asset Transfer Demonstration Programme.

The aim was to acquire the former Bangor Courthouse building and to refurbish it to be reopened as a multipurpose arts centre. It would be used for the purpose of creating space for the performing, visual and literary arts and would include a cafe / bistro. It was hoped that the building would be a considerable attraction for residents and visitors and which would enliven the evening economy.

21

C.23.9.15

The Bangor Shared Space group discussed the project with Officers of the legacy North Down Borough Council and advised that it was now ready to submit its business case to the DoJ with which it would like to enclose a letter of support from the Council. At this stage the draft business case was not available and therefore it would not be possible to commit yet to some of the specific requests as set out in the letter, for example access to grant funding and booking hire. However, assistance with funding applications (to other organisations), promotion and marketing of event programmes, training and advice would be normal support offered to such organisations.

There would be undoubted benefits from the success of this project as it would bring back into public use an important listed, but currently vacant building along the seafront in Bangor. It would support the establishment and sustaining of a social enterprise which would create a venue for the arts and social scene in Bangor. It was clear that this organisation was to be commended for its initiative so far and being selected as one of only a few projects in Northern Ireland for consideration under the Community Asset Transfer Programme.

The Council would need to consider the business case fully, once it had been completed, before committing any financial resources, however, an offer of ‘in principle support’ to the Bangor Shared Space’s Courthouse project at this time would be important to strengthen their bid for approval by the DoJ. Further consideration could then be given to the specific requests for support arising from the next stage of the process, should they be successful in progressing further..

RECOMMNENDED that:-

1. The Council approves the sending of a letter to Bangor Shared Space to grant it’s in principle support to the Courthouse Project for inclusion in its business case submission to the Department of Justice.

2. The Council considers the final business case and reports back to a future meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Committee regarding the project.

(Councillors Dunne and Cathcart entered the meeting at this stage – 8.48pm)

Councillor Robinson welcomed the report and the recommendations contained therein as the project was one which she fully supported.

Councillor Anderson echoed those comments and indicated his support also for the project.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation be adopted.

22

C.23.9.15

13. CONFERENCES, INVITATIONS ETC.

(Councillor Walker left the meeting at this stage – 8.49pm)

13.1. NILGA/APSE Regional Elected Member Development ‘The New General Power of Competence’

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence from NIGLA detailing a one day course to be hosted by NILGA for regional elected member development entitled ‘The New General Power of Competence’ – 28 October 2015 at Glenavon Hotel, Cookstown & 29 October 2015 at Lough Neagh Discovery Centre, Craigavon.

The following nominations were made:-

Councillor Fletcher proposed, seconded by Alderman Henry, that Aldermen Carson and M Smith attend.

Councillor McIlveen proposed, seconded by Councillor Adair, that Aldermen Gibson and Keery attend.

Councillor Wilson proposed, seconded by Councillor Armstrong, that Alderman McDowell and Councillor Muir attend.

Councillor Kennedy proposed, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that Councillor Thompson attend.

RESOLVED that the following members be nominated to attend the event:-

Aldermen Carson, Gibson, Keery, McDowell and M Smith Councillors Muir and Thompson

13.2. Intertrade Ireland Meet the Buyer Event – File 231239

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 9 September 2015 from the Head of Performance and Projects stating that a Meet-the-Buyer event hosted by Intertrade Ireland would be held in the CityWest Hotel, Dublin on 21 October 2015. As with previous events, the aim was to bring together public sector buyers and potential suppliers in a mutually supporting and beneficial environment. It was hoped that this event would assist in better preparing potential suppliers in bidding for public sector contracts and could be used as a platform to inform suppliers of the changes following local government reform. At the same time buyers would be afforded the opportunity to learn of new goods and services that might be relevant to their business needs.

The Procurement Manager and Procurement Officer had been invited to attend to represent Northern Ireland local government procurement. The event and accommodation costs would be met by Intertrade Ireland.

23

C.23.9.15

RECOMMENDED that approval be given for the Procurement Manager and Procurement Assistant to attend the event and that travel and subsistence be paid in accordance with Council policy. . RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Boyle, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation be adopted.

13.3. Social Enterprise NI Conference and Awards 2015 – File 160091

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 23 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that Social Enterprise NI was the voice for Social Enterprises and Social Entrepreneurs in Northern Ireland. A central meeting place where the sector could collaborate, share knowledge, information and best practice to create real social change. The Government defined social enterprises as “businesses with primarily social objectives whose surpluses were principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners.”

Social Enterprises operated in almost every industry in the UK, from health and social care to renewable energy, from retail to recycling, from employment to sport, from housing to education. Well known UK Social Enterprises locally include Bryson Charitable Group and East Belfast Mission, 2012 winners of the UK award for Social Enterprise.

The 2015 Social Enterprise NI Conference aimed to bring together Councils, the Public Sector, Private Sector, Community and Voluntary representatives and would look at the opportunities and challenges of ‘Building Better Supply Chains: The Benefits of Buying Social’.

The Conference and Awards Ceremony would take place at the Dunadry Hotel on 22 October 2015. As members the rate for attending the conference was £95.00 and it was felt that the Chief Executive and Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning should attend this Conference.

RECOMMENDED that the Chief Executive and Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attend the Social Enterprise NI Conference on 22 October 2015 at the Dunadry Hotel, at a cost of £95.00 per delegate.

Councillor Muir asked if members could attend the event or if it was solely for officers.

The Mayor commented that as the cost per attendee was £95.00 that only those officers referred to in the report should attend.

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

24

C.23.9.15

14. TRANSFERS OF RIGHTS OF BURIAL

The following transfer application was received:-

Name Transferred to Cemetery Section No

BG15186 Arnold Arnold Ballyvester F D38

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Carson, seconded by Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, that the Transfers of Rights of Burial be approved.

15. SEALING DOCUMENTS

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

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

(a) Licence Agreement: Ards and North Down Borough Council –and- Cloughey & District Community Centre (b) Deed of Surrender of Part - Lease at Church Grove, Kircubbin, Co Down (c) Grant of Right of Burials Nos: 20022,20024, 200226,20028, 20029,20030, 20035, 20035, 20044, 20047,20048 & 20051 (d) Grant of Right of Burials Nos: 11835-11862 (e) Licence for Signage at Portavogie – Department for Regional Development – and- Ards and North Down Borough Council

(Councillor Walker entered the meeting at this stage – 8.54pm)

16. NOTICES OF MOTION

16.1. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor T Smith

Councillor T Smith proposed, seconded by Councillor Kennedy, that, as a country, we fulfil not only our legal obligations but also our moral obligations to those in need. While this council welcomes recent moves by the Government to do more to assist those fleeing in fear of their lives, we will write to the Foreign Secretary calling on Westminster to take a leading role in addressing this humanitarian disaster. We also as a Council must stand ready to work with Government and play whatever part we can to ensure refugees who come to our Borough will have the support and assistance they need. And finally, as a community we must be prepared, by word

25

C.23.9.15 and by deed, to welcome those who may come to Ards and North Down - so they can be helped to rebuild their lives in safety and security.

(Councillor Adair left the meeting at this stage – 8.56pm)

Councillor Smith commented that it had just been a few weeks ago that people right across the world had been horrified by the pictures of little Alan Kurdi. That image of a young child, barely more than a baby, lying alone and lifeless on a Turkish shore, was an image that had come to symbolise the horrific human tragedy that was unfolding before us. He added that it was certainly an image that would remain with him for a very long time. It was also an image that not only saddened and shocked him but one which shamed him because it had taken the death of a three year old child to make him sit up and take notice of what was happening in that region.

(Councillor Ferguson left the meeting at this stage – 8.57pm)

Of course, like many others, he had been aware of the crisis in Syria and acknowledged that it had been going on for many months, with coverage in papers and on the television. Yet he had been unable to shake his head and think “how terrible”, and then conveniently push it to the back of my mind. He suggested that he, like others had developed an immunity to suffering of others, adding that after all, were there not enough problems here in our own land so who needed to care about people halfway around the world.

(Councillor Adair entered the meeting at this stage – 8.58pm)

(Councillor Armstrong-Cotter left the meeting at this stage – 8.58pm)

Of course, the answer to that he stated was a simple one that if people had any shred of humanity left in them or if they had the slightest spark of Christian compassion about us then everyone must all care.

(Councillor Ferguson entered the meeting at this stage – 9.00pm)

Continuing, he stated that in Britain there was a long tradition of helping others and assisting refugees’ right across the world. In the past Jewish children and many Poles had been welcomed during the Second World War. As well as thousands of Vietnamese Boat people, Ugandan Asians, and those fleeing from the horrors of Kosovo. Britain had been and should be offered as a place of sanctuary and refuge for the oppressed and persecuted.

However sadly, there were those who would deliberately try and confuse the issue of asylum with immigration. He added that there were also those who would seek to portray refugees, people fleeing in fear of their lives as some sort of problem to be avoided, as a burden that we should not be expected to carry and as a threat to our way of life. And while it was perfectly proper that the UK as a nation had a right to argue for stronger border controls for economic migrants, It also had a duty, both a legal and moral obligation, to help those who were genuine refugees. He stated that the crisis which was happening now was something that no one country could handle and therefor all had a part to play. He added that what Europe faced today

26

C.23.9.15 was a humanitarian disaster on a scale not seen since World War 2. Millions of people had already fled Syria and many more had been displaced within its borders. Councillor Smith commented that little Alan was not the first child to die and unfortunately he would not be the last. Thousands of men, women and child had perished as they fled the turmoil of civil war and the butchery of ISIS. He asked who among us could blame them and would any of us, faced with the same stark circumstances do anything different.

Those who were fleeing Syria were doing so because they were out of options and they knew their only choice now was to either flee and face an uncertain future and unknown hardships or stay and face the certainly of pain and persecution. Likewise those parents who had fled, holding tight their frightened, hungry children, knew that in leaving their towns and villages they were risking life itself. Yet they did so because they knew that to remain was to face the very real threat of death. Everyone here today, was truly fortunate that they were not part of the desperate mass clambering onto boats and rafts, ready to cross dangerous seas in search of a safe haven. Instead each of us should be thankful that we were not those parents forced to travel over treacherous and hostile terrain, pressing on in the fading hope of finding someone, somewhere who would show compassion and mercy on us and our children.

He acknowledged that these were truly desperate times and those were truly desperate people, and asked what could be done. After all, the Council was just one voice, but the good news was that it was not the only voice being one of many who, since the death of Alan Kurdi, were demanding more of government and indeed more of everyone. He added that as a country, as a council and as a community everyone could do more.

Councillor T Smith welcomed the recent moves by Government to increase the numbers of refugees coming to the UK, and while he did not want to get into a numbers game on the issue, he personally felt that the 4,000 Syrian refugees that the UK had committed to take each year should be a minimum. To put that into context, spread evenly across the every constituency in the UK , that meant resettling just six refugees per constituency per year. He asked if that really was such a task, such a challenge for a country as great as ours.

As mentioned in his motion, Councillor T Smith believed the Council should write to the Foreign Secretary asking him to ensure that the government, in partnership with its European neighbours played a leading role in assisting refugees as well as seeking a long term solution to the conflict in Syria. The UK must do all it could to help those who were able to come and find sanctuary there as well and providing assistance for the millions still in Syria and surrounding countries.

Clarity should also be sought as to what the Council’s expected role would be should refugees settle here in Ards and North Down. That was something he believed should also be raised with NILGA who could act on behalf of all the councils in Northern Ireland, again seeking clarity of possible roles and also to discuss the matter of financial assistance from central government. It was important to ensure that in assisting those coming to the UK that we did not at the same time in some

27

C.23.9.15 way disadvantage local residents, appropriate funding from government would be essential in achieving this.

Councillor T Smith commented that when considering the role of council , he was thinking not just of it as a corporate body but also as individual councillors, community representatives who must by word and deed do all they could to ensure that those who came here would feel welcome and safe.

Along with local communities the Council must respond with open arms and open hearts and it was worth mentioning that the local community here in Ards and North Down had already responded and continued to respond to this crisis. He acknowledged that many people had made financial donations to those organisations who worked tirelessly on the ground assisting refugees wherever they were. People had also donated thousands of essential items which were being sent by the truckload to those in need.

Of course, as long as the crisis persisted then more was needed and the Council must all rise to the challenge. Those who had fled Syria had lost everything and those who would come to the UK and maybe even to the Borough would be people who had not only lost their homes and possessions but also loved ones too. Some would have lost mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. There would be orphans, alone and afraid, there would be parents who would be inconsolable and despondent. Those would be people who were destitute, heartbroken and fearful. And while the Council could provide various levels of support, there was one important thing they must receive and that was hope. Here in Northern Ireland, having faced so much pain and suffering of our own, we must make sure that we extend the hand of friendship and do all that we could to help as those poor men, women and children try and rebuild their devastated lives. After all they had been through they must be given hope of a better life and a better future as part of our community. We must demonstrate to each and every one who arrived on our shore that we were a country that provided rest for the persecuted, that we were a society that supported those who were weak and that we were a community that cared for those in need.

Of course he stated that words were easy and it was a different matter to put words into actions. He added that everyone must not give into fear, or allow the prejudices of a minority to dictate actions at this time and we must not allow a person’s nationality, religious belief, or skin colour be used as an excuse to do nothing . He added that everyone could not close their eyes or turn their backs on this human disaster any longer.

Having seen the generosity of spirit that had been expressed even in the last number of weeks he was convinced that, as a country, as a council and, more importantly, as a community, everyone would do all they could to help those who were caught up in this terrible tragedy.

Councillor Kennedy rose in support of all of the remarks made by the proposer.

Councillor Armstrong commented that it was difficult to follow on from such an emotive speech and thanked Councillor T Smith for bringing it forward. She noted

28

C.23.9.15 that the crisis in Syria had resulted in almost 220,000 deaths and displaced approximately four million people, who had been classed as either refugees or immigrants. In light of that she suggested that a refugee strategy needed to be devised to put smoother processes in place and encourage partnership working to deal with the issue. At a recent collection a staggering amount of money had been collected within one hour with many people wanting to know what they could do to help. Continuing she acknowledged that it was a very disturbing situation for all of those involved particularly as they were no different to anyone of us.

Councillor Barry also rose in support of the motion and asked that consideration was given to the addition of the following: ‘Furthermore that the Council sought ways of providing practical support for the collection of aid for the refugees’.

While he had support for all of those caught up in the Syrian conflict, Councillor Menagh reminded members that Northern Ireland had also been involved in its own conflict. He referred to the thousands of starving people and veterans living in Northern Ireland and emphasised the importance of looking after those people also. Thanking Councillor T Smith for his motion, Councillor Cooper noted the significance of the displacement of approximately four million people. He questioned the difference between refugees and immigrants stating that those fleeing Syria would become refugees of the first country they entered. Continuing he also referred to the generosity of the UK government and its residents to date in comparison to other EU countries and those countries which shared a border with Syria. He also agreed there were issues here within Northern Ireland which needed to be dealt with including the issue of army veterans. Therefore he encouraged people to consider the reality of the situation and keep it in context, adding that he was happy to support the motion as long as the veterans and vulnerable people within the UK were not forgotten.

Councillor Boyle commented that during his 12 years in local government he had never heard a speech made with such passion and emotion as that just delivered by Councillor T Smith and congratulated him for that. Agreeing with the comments which had been made, he added that many people felt helpless at this time particularly as there was sufficient room in the United Kingdom to take refugees despite the Government’s comments on the matter. Continuing , he stated that leadership and guidance was now required and took the opportunity to inform members that Saint Vincent De Paul had organised a supportive event in Portaferry at the weekend in support of the crisis in Syria.

Rising in support, Councillor McIlveen also paid tribute to Councillor T Smith for the passion and eloquence shown during the delivery of his speech. He referred to previous comments made about support for veterans stating that the Notice of Motion was not about that issue and instead members should keep their focus on the issues raised by Councillor T Smith.

Alderman Chambers concurred with all of the comments previously made and was fully supportive of the motion. However, not in any way to take away from those comments he stated that the human tragedy had been brought to everyone’s attention through the media and many of those images would remain with people for a very long time. He acknowledged that while it was a major tragedy, unfortunately

29

C.23.9.15 the reality was that children were dying every day of the week all around the world as a result of malnutrition or illness. He added that unless everyone worked together in all communities such tragedies would continue throughout the third world.

At this stage Councillor Adair referred to the persecution of Christians throughout Syria and stated that was a matter of grave concern also.

In summing up, Councillor T Smith thanked members for their support and also acknowledged the plight of army veterans which had been raised by a number of members, as well as the plight of Christians in Syria. Continuing, he expressed his shame for not being aware of the plight of those fleeing Syria and for not taking the matter more seriously. He asked what could be done and suggested that everyone could do so much more to help. He again reiterated his thanks to members for their support to his motion.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Kennedy, that as a country, we fulfil not only our legal obligations but also our moral obligations to those in need. While this council welcomes recent moves by the Government to do more to assist those fleeing in fear of their lives, we will write to the Foreign Secretary calling on Westminster to take a leading role in addressing this humanitarian disaster. We also as a Council must stand ready to work with Government and play whatever part we can to ensure refugees who come to our Borough will have the support and assistance they need. And finally, as a community we must be prepared, by word and by deed, to welcome those who may come to Ards and North Down - so they can be helped to rebuild their lives in safety and security. Furthermore that the Council sought ways of providing practical support for the collection of aid for the refugees.

16.2. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cummings

“'That this Council acknowledges the endeavours of the newly formed Edmund De Wind VC Centenary Committee who are raising funds to purchase a WW1 Field Gun, identical to that which was gifted to the people of Comber post WW1 and was subsequently removed during the governments WW2 scrap iron appeal. Further, the Council tasks an officer to complete a report into the feasibility of permanently positioning the Field Gun back in the Memorial Garden, The Square, Comber in time to coincide with and to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of Second Lieutenant Edmund De Wind, VC of the Royal Irish Rifles who was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for acts of gallantry at Thiepval, France in 1918”.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Cummings, seconded by Alderman Keery, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the appropriate Committee.

16.3. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cooper

“'That this council recognises the startling level of suicides in N.I. and asks officers to bring back a report outlining all aspects of suicide prevention adopted by other UK

30

C.23.9.15 councils with a view to producing and adopting a policy specifically aimed at reducing the risk of further suicides in our borough”.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Allen, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the appropriate Committee.

16.4. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Martin

“That this Council requests a report on the feasibility of rolling out a pilot scheme to local Primary schools in our Council area which would provide the opportunity for school children to learn basic computer programming techniques”.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Martin, seconded by Councillor Adair, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the appropriate Committee.

COMFORT BREAK

The meeting stopped at this stage for a comfort break and recommenced at 9.35pm.

(Alderman Carson and Councillor Ferguson left the meeting at this stage – 9.36pm)

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

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

7.5. COMMUNITY AND WELLBEING COMMITTEE DATED 9 SEPTEMBER 2015

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

Item 20 – Burial Charges and Boundary Change Considerations – File BG15167

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

17. BUSINESS CASE – VOLUNTARY SEVERANCE

The Mayor advised that the item had been withdrawn.

NOTED.

31

C.23.9.15

18. BANGOR SPORTSPLEX GROUND SETTLEMENT – LEGAL CASE – FILE 59016 (Appendix III)

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

19. TENDER REPORT – FILE SP3392

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

19.1. ARDS AND NORTH DOWN VILLAGE PLANS - FILE CG3380 A752

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

20. EXPLORIS – UPDATE ON OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

21. LAND AT LOUGH COWEY

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

22. LAND AT FORMER BUS STATION, DONAGHADEE

The Mayor advised that the item had been withdrawn.

NOTED.

32

C.23.9.15

RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

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

23. RETRACTION OF COMMENTS

At this stage Councillor Boyle rose and referred to comments he had made in relation to the minutes of the Community and Wellbeing Committee dated 9 September 2015. He asked to place on record that his comments in relation to the Good Relations Report (page 15) had not been directed to any member of staff for omitting intentionally any of the debate from this part of the meeting.

NOTED.

Circulated for Information

(a) Notification of New PSNI Postholders (Correspondence attached) (b) Woodland Trust – Letter of Thanks (Correspondence attached) (c) Debt Management Advice Service (Correspondence attached) (d) Minutes of Meeting of South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust 24 June 2015 (Correspondence attached) (e) Housing Executive 44th Annual Report (Correspondence attached) (f) DVA – Introduction of the New Commercial Bus Service Permit System (Copy correspondence attached) (g) Department of Culture, Arts & Leisure – Appointments to Arts Council NI & Sport NI (Copy correspondence attached) (h) Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment – Appointment of Five New Board Members to the Board of the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland (Copy correspondence attached) (i) Birthday Honours 2016 (Copy correspondence attached)

NOTED.

24. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 10.40pm

33

ITEM 6.1

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Planning Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 at 7.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Alderman Gibson

Other Members: The Mayor (Alderman Graham) Deputy Mayor (Councillor McClean) Alderman Irvine Alderman McDowell Alderman M Smith

Councillors: Barry Dunne (Vice Chairman) Fletcher McIlveen Thompson Walker

Officers: Chief Executive (S Reid), Head of Planning (A McCullough), Principal Professional and Technical Officer (G Kerr), Higher Professional and Technical Officer (S Clarke), Democratic Services Manager (J Wilson) and Democratic Services Officer (M McElveen)

WELCOME

The Chairman (Alderman Gibson) welcomed the Chief Executive and Officers present to the meeting and also included those persons seated in the public gallery. He took the opportunity to mention that Alderman Carson was undergoing a procedure in hospital and on behalf of the Committee wished him well.

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Alderman Keery who was in Gallipoli on Council business, Alderman Carson who was in hospital and the Director of Regeneration and Development (C Mahon) who was unwell.

An apology for lateness was recorded from Councillor Walker.

NOTED.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman (Alderman Gibson) asked for any declarations of interest.

PC.06.10.15

Alderman Smith declared an interest in Item 4.4 – Application No. W/2014/0432/F and stated that she would leave the meeting during discussion.

The Chairman (Alderman Gibson) declared an interest in Item 4.5 – Application No. X/2013/0259/F, advising that he would leave the meeting during discussion and the Deputy Chairman (Councillor Dunne) would chair the meeting at that stage.

NOTED.

(The Mayor (Alderman Graham) entered the meeting at this stage – 7.05 pm)

3. MATTERS ARISING FROM MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 1 SEPTEMBER 2015

The Chairman (Alderman Gibson) asked Members to indicate if there were any matters arising from the previous meeting of the Planning Committee held on 1 September 2015.

The Head of Planning brought attention to the planning application for a single wind turbine at Balligan Road, Kircubbin which had been deferred pending legal advice. She commented that the information was awaited but anticipated its availability for the meeting of the Planning Committee in November 2015.

NOTED.

4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

4.1 Application No. X/2013/0370/F – Lands to the North and West of No. 1 Ardnavalley Park, Comber

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix I):

The Principal Professional and Technical Officer guided Members through a PowerPoint presentation which included a summary of the application, location maps and a photograph of the site:

. DEA: Comber . Committee Interest: 2 objections had been received . Proposal: Residential development of 41 detached dwellings, including garages, carports and all associated site works . Site Location: Lands to the north and west of No 1 Ardnavalley Park, Comber . Recommendation: Approve Planning Permission

The Principal Professional and Technical Officer reported that the proposed housing development of 41 detached dwellings and garages/carports, comprised phase 3 of Ardnavalley development in Comber and therefore the overall principle of housing on that site had been established. Phase 1 had been built and although phase 2 was approved works had not yet commenced.

2

PC.06.10.15

The Principal Officer further explained that the site lay within the development limits of Comber according to the Ards and North Down Area Plan 2015. There were no objections from any of the consultees and where necessary conditions had been included which would mitigate any concerns such as potential archaeological find, as the application site also lay within the Comber Area of Archaeological Potential. In addition, there were conditions placed on the application which would ensure the protection of Strangford Lough SAC/SPA/Strangford Lough ASSI. She indicated that it was a quality residential development with finishes to reflect the wider Ardnavalley development and approval was recommended.

In response to a query from Alderman Girvan regarding density of the development, the Principal Officer stated that the final stage of the scheme consisted of 41 detached dwellings. Although phase 2 had included a semi-detached style, phase 3 constituted 2 storey detached properties, with one of those to the rear of the site appearing as 3 storeys due to the sloping nature of the plot. However, she highlighted that a high level of mature vegetation and trees along existing boundaries would be retained.

Alderman Girvan recalled previous sewage problems encountered at that location which had taken six months to rectify.

In that regard, the Principal Officer clarified that NI Water had been consulted and had offered no objections as it was believed that the capacity of the sewerage infrastructure was satisfactory.

Referring to the 17th century village of archaeological interest, named as New Comber, Alderman Girvan enquired as to the artefacts that had been found.

The Principal Officer reiterated that the village had been identified on a map dated 1625 and the NIEA Historic Monuments Unit had confirmed the discovery of archaeological remains. Subsequently, a condition had been placed on the application that no actual development could be instigated on site until such times as a programme of archaeological work had been implemented by a qualified archaeologist.

(Councillor Walker entered the meeting at this stage – 7.10 pm)

Alderman Girvan expressed unease about the prospect of an increased volume of traffic on Ballydrain Road and the probable issues with access where it met the Killinchy Road, as a consequence of the new development. Although Transport NI had approved the proposals, she wondered if consideration would be given to a roundabout should further difficulties arise.

On that issue, the Principal Officer restated that Transport NI had submitted no objections having taken into account future traffic levels.

Councillor Fletcher mentioned the archaeological opportunity and enlightened Members by explaining that the name of the old area related to sisters/craftsmen of that time. He wondered if remains were discovered during the excavation would that result in a hindrance to the development process.

3

PC.06.10.15

The Principal Officer clarified that whenever the study was undertaken, a report on the findings would be forwarded to the NIEA Historic Monuments Unit. Initially it would seem that the remains were situated within pockets of the site but no immediate study had been organised. She said that there was no cause for concern pertaining to the housing development as condition 6 contained standard wording.

Although happy to accept the proposals, Councillor Fletcher focused on how that particular locality was acknowledged as being abundant in wildlife and as an example mentioned that peregrine falcons were seen nesting there. To that end, he questioned if an environmental impact survey had been carried out. Additionally, he referred to the premises of the Comber Sailing Club in that vicinity and asked if they had offered objections to the application.

In reply, the Principal Officer verified that in such circumstances they were guided by the consultees. She reaffirmed that the site was close to both Strangford Lough and the ASSI boundary and with the purpose of abating against potential contamination; the NIEA had requested the submission of an Environmental Construction Management Plan and Pollution Prevention Plan placed as conditions for approval. She remarked that no representation had been received from Comber Sailing Club.

Councillor Barry thanked the Officer for her comprehensive report and expressed his satisfaction that the nine conditions to be placed on the application denoted due diligence.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation to grant planning permission be adopted.

4.2 Application No. X/2015/0156/RM – Dairy Hall Playing Fields, John Street, Newtownards

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix II):

The Principal Professional and Technical Officer guided Members through a PowerPoint presentation which included a summary of the application, extract from the Ards and Down Area Plan 2015, a location map and several photographs of the site:

. DEA: Newtownards . Committee Interest: No objections had been received . Proposal: Construction of new leisure centre with associated outdoor play and activity facilities, parking and landscaping . Site Location: Dairy Hall Playing Fields, John Street, Newtownards . Recommendation: Approve Planning Permission

The Principal Professional and Technical Officer informed Members that this item was appearing before the Committee as it was a Council application. The outline application for the leisure centre had already been approved and roadworks were well under way at the junction of John Street in Newtownards, which was a condition set out in the original outline approval for the leisure centre (X/2010/0330/O). The proposal presented the opportunity for a landmark community building for the

4

PC.06.10.15 residents of the Borough and there were no objections to the application. Although being in a town centre location, she pointed out that the building was not obtrusive as it was set back from main roads and the site was well screened. She confirmed that conditions included the requirement of a Construction Plan to be submitted to the Council and restriction on times for construction and deliveries to protect the amenity of residents living in the vicinity of the development during the course of building works. Planning approval was recommended.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation to grant planning permission be adopted.

4.3 Application No. LA06/2015/0345/F – Spafield Playing Fields, Holywood

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix III):

The Principal Professional and Technical Officer guided Members through a PowerPoint presentation which included a summary of the application, location maps and several photographs of the site:

. DEA: Holywood and Clandeboye . Committee Interest: No objections had been received . Proposal: Replacement of existing 5m high fence with a 7.4m high paladin ball-stop fence to an existing 3G sports pitch . Site Location: Spafield Playing Fields, adjacent to Holywood by-pass and carpark adjacent to High Street,Holywood . Recommendation: Approve Planning Permission

The Principal Professional and Technical Officer outlined that the proposal was appearing before the Committee as it was a Council application. Originally it had been proposed to increase the fence height around all of the 3G pitch from 5 metres to 7.4 metres. However, following representations from residents of the adjacent apartment development, the application was amended to increase the fence to 7 metres at its boundary with the dual carriageway only. She described how the fence would have an element of screening as there was vegetation in proximity to the carriageway and approval was recommended.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Dunne, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation to grant planning permission be adopted.

(Having declared an interest in Item 4.4, Alderman Smith left the meeting at this stage – 7.21 pm)

4.4 Application No. W/2014/0432/F – Land to rear of 9 and 11 Raglan Road, Bangor

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix IV):

The Head of Planning made reference to the summary of the application, extract from the Ards and Down Area Plan 2015, location maps, internal layout drawings and photographs of the site:

5

PC.06.10.15

. DEA: Bangor West . Committee Interest: 6 or more separate objections had been received . Proposal: 2 No. detached dwellings to rear of 9 and 11 Raglan Road, Bangor . Site Location: Lands to rear of 9 and 11 Raglan Road, Bangor . Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission

The Head of Planning further advised that Members would recall that this application had been deferred from September’s meeting to convene a site meeting to address roads concerns and drainage issues raised by objectors.

That site visit had taken place on 29 September with two officers from Transport NI in attendance and they reiterated their contentment with the proposal in terms of access, movement and parking. A representative from NI Water did not attend as no concerns were raised in respect of the proposal from a sewerage/drainage perspective. She had spoken with a member of NI Water that morning who confirmed that there were no issues in relation to the site proposed.

She highlighted that a report detailing those objections received by Members and the planning department since the previous Planning Committee meeting had been made available to Members and there were no outstanding issues to be addressed. The recommendation to approve thus remained.

Councillor McClean made reference to the addendum to PPS 6 whereby there was specific reference to PPS 7 to intensification of site usage or site coverage only being permitted in exceptional circumstances. He had carried out his own assessment and determined that the density of the development would be significantly higher than the established residential area. He was mindful that most properties in Raglan Road were detached with large gardens and that approval of such proposals could be viewed as setting a precedent. He noted that the Case Officer had ascertained the density of the application to be comparable with or even less than other existing developments within that Area of Townscape Character and there had been no detrimental cumulative impact on the character. Furthermore, Transport NI had concluded that there would be no significant impact in terms of traffic movements. He voiced satisfaction that each application was assessed on its own merits but queried whether those proposals would degrade the ATC.

The Head of Planning underlined that with regard to PPS 7, the department was cognisant of planning history and appeal decisions with case law established through previous appeals. The weight to be afforded to material planning considerations meant that each case was considered on its own merits. The proposal site on Raglan Road was deemed as backland and it was observed that the ground level was significantly lower than sites on the adjacent Raglan Road and Princetown Road. The rear garden was also of an excessive size and was therefore treated differently than a proposal in the side garden of a front facing site. Analysis was undertaken against relevant planning policies; the application met the criteria of Addendum to PPS 6 in that the character of the area as a whole was not being adversely affected.

The Mayor (Alderman Graham) accepted that the issue of setting a precedent was not a deciding factor but did carry some weight. He indicated that Bangor West was

6

PC.06.10.15 a much sought after area due to its large plots, which provided scope for higher density development in certain parts without interfering with the top quality housing. He noticed that there would be a joint access which he thought indicated a degree of ‘shoe horning’ but felt reassured that a future precedent would not be strengthened by the recommendation for approval.

The Head of Planning recognised that concern had been voiced by residents about the apparent casual eroding of that neighbourhood. Taking account of past approvals for the proposal, alongside the fact that separation distances and accesses were adequate, she emphasised that it would not be detrimental to the character of that residential location, or adversely impinge upon the existing dwellings.

Councillor Fletcher remarked that similar development also occurred in rural districts where supplementary houses were built around existing properties creating an infill site in the middle. He was of the opinion that planning policy which permitted such intensification of development would pose a substantial problem in the future.

In concurrence, the Head of Planning appreciated that ‘ribboning’ did take place within the countryside but that PPS 21 permitted development on farms, conversions and infill sites. She explained that an urban footprint within development limits differed somewhat from virgin land and Officers adhered to guidance contained within the Regional Development Strategy in terms of targeting new development within urban footprints before extensions on green field land. The site in question could adequately accommodate an additional dwelling.

The Chairman (Alderman Gibson) reminded the Committee that the development amounted to two dwellings – extant approval for one dwelling and proposal for one additional dwelling.

The proposal was put to the meeting and with 7 voting for, 2 against and 3 abstentions, it was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Walker, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation to grant planning permission be adopted.

(Having declared an interest in Item 4.5, the Chairman (Alderman Gibson) left the meeting at this stage – 7.40 pm. The Vice Chairman (Councillor Dunne) chaired the meeting during discussion of the undernoted item.)

(Alderman Smith re-entered the meeting at this stage – 7.40 pm)

4.5 Application No. X/2013/0259/F – Lands 322m SE of 7 Lough Cowey Road, Portaferry

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation – summary of application, location map and photographs of the site (Appendix V):

The Head of Planning reminded Members that the application had been deferred

7

PC.06.10.15 from September’s meeting in order that enhanced visuals could be provided by the applicant to highlight visuals from Strangford Lough.

. DEA: Ards Peninsula . Committee Interest: 6 or more separate objections had been received . Proposal: Proposed installation of a wind turbine on a tubular tower of 41.5m height with blades up to 55m tip height . Site Location: Lands 332m South East of 7 Lough Cowey Road, Portaferry . Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission

The Head of Planning further advised that the Strategic Planning Policy Statement 2015 had been published in final form on 28 September 2015, with the resultant outcome that sustainable development should be permitted having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations. She verified that under the requirements of PPS 18, the wider environmental, economic and social benefits of renewable energy projects were material considerations that would be given significant weight in determining whether planning permission should be granted. However, in such instances, the SPPS stipulated that the benefits of renewables should be given appropriate weight. Having carefully scrutinised the above application, she said that appropriate weight had been awarded to the broader benefits of the proposal in respect of the wider regional strategic objectives as highlighted in the SPPS. Hence, the planning decision was to offer one of approval, reasoning that the proposed wind turbine would not cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the visual amenity and landscape character within the local area.

In making reference to the SPPS, Councillor McIlveen suggested that it now appeared to relate more to weight and interpretation and perhaps it was a diminution of planning provision.

The Head of Planning responded to this by detailing the importance of undertaking a balanced approach to promote renewable energy as well as evaluating the visual impact. Following September’s Committee meeting, an enhanced visual assessment was initiated and circulated to Members that evening prior to the meeting.

Councillor McIlveen queried the differing emphasis from significant to appropriate. It was his viewpoint that the change lessened the weight attached to a planning decision.

In response, the Head of Planning intimated that without a definition of appropriate, Officers were of the view that the proposal had received due consideration and had determined that the turbine would not cause any unacceptable adverse effects balanced against the strategic objectives regarding renewables.

From a personal perspective, Councillor McIlveen noted that the region was one of outstanding natural beauty and the Lough itself was a stunning centrepiece which was frequented and admired by numerous recreational users. He therefore disputed the decision that the proposed turbine would not impinge on the visual impact of that location; rather it would disrupt the views from the Lough and produce a negative effect.

8

PC.06.10.15

The Head of Planning agreed that there was a challenge for planners in harmonising the stipulations of the SSPS and the potential impact of an application on a particular location. She added that that planning guidance did not replace PPS 18 which was still accountable and exacerbated difficulties for arriving at an evaluation. Planners had taken on board how earlier appeals had been treated by the PAC and without evidence as to how tourism would be affected; turbines had been permitted in other areas of natural beauty.

At this stage, Councillor Barry maintained that on many occasions the personal opinions of Members would in all likelihood be contradictory to those of planners, who utilised their professional judgement and expertise to interpret information and reach decisions in accordance with planning legislation.

The Mayor (Alderman Graham) reflected upon the substantial concerns surrounding the issue of wind turbines, especially when proposed for an area of natural beauty. Although aware that Northern Ireland must meet its renewable targets, he was not in favour of erecting an industrial sized turbine in the countryside. He was mindful that Members would have had reservations about the introduction of any other type of industrial operation in a rural setting. The location in question was not an urban area of greater Belfast but a rural one encompassing farms, loughs and villages. Furthermore, there were controls over the size of a dwelling that could be built in country districts, thus better regulation was needed for turbines as it was clearly not farmers erecting these structures but large financial institutions. The Mayor stressed that it was crucial not to establish a precedent by letting down the rural communities. He was certainly not averse to renewable energy per se but believed the siting of wind turbines within the countryside to be an unnatural practice and in that respect he was totally opposed to their construction.

The proposal was put to the meeting and with 5 voting for, 4 against and 3 abstentions, it was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Fletcher, that the recommendation to grant planning permission be adopted.

(Alderman Gibson re-entered the meeting at this stage – 7.55 pm and resumed his role as Chairman)

5. REPORT ON PROPOSED PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING (Appendix VI)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Planning (Development Management) Regulations (NI) 2015, copy of report dated 23 February 2015 and report dated 6 October 2015 from Head of Planning detailing the undernoted information:

1. Attached for information was a report on pre-determination hearings that was circulated for information to members of the Shadow Planning Committee in February 2015 alongside a Development Management Practice Note published by the Department of the Environment in April 2015.

9

PC.06.10.15

2. It was proposed that a pre-determination hearing was convened in relation to the following planning application and that the following procedures would apply:

Ref: LA06/2015/0389/F

Location: Lands located south-west of junction of A2 Belfast Road and B170 Ballysallagh Road, Bangor (bounded by Belfast Road, Ballysallagh Road and Clandeboye Avenue)

Proposal: Proposed solar farm and ancillary development

3. This proposal fell within the Major category of ‘all other development’ where the area of the site was or exceeded 1 hectare as defined within the Schedule to the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (NI) 2015.

4. Whilst a limited number of objections had been received, this was a proposal covering a large area of land (c25ha) and which represented a relatively new type of development within this Council Borough. The Planning Committee previously approved a solar farm in Carrowdore (c21ha) which was in a predominantly rural area, whereas this proposal lay close to the urban area of Bangor and abutted the A2 Belfast Road.

5. The pre-determination hearing would follow similar arrangements to the Planning Committee and would be presided over by the Chairman of the Planning Committee.

6. The pre-determination hearing was open to members of the public to attend, however, space was limited and any persons wishing to attend must register with the Council.

7. Requests to speak would be facilitated on a first come/first served basis. Spaces would be allocated on a first come/first serve basis. In addition, members of the public, objectors, applicants and their representatives etc may request to speak at the pre-determination hearing through the public speaking procedures, which were available on the Council’s website.

8. Members of the public, objectors, supporters of the application, including applicant’s agents/representatives, and non-Planning Committee members of the Council were not entitled to ask any questions or cross examine any other person; however, Planning Committee Members may ask any speaker for clarification on any issue of their presentation.

9. Up to six (6) non-Planning Committee Members of the Council may request to speak at the hearing and a time restriction of five (5) minutes would apply to each Councillor. 10. A period of 30 minutes would be allowed for objectors to speak and each speaker would be subject to a time limit of five (5) minutes. Where more than six (6) objectors registered to speak, the time available would be split evenly amongst the objectors.

10

PC.06.10.15

11. Supporters of the proposal, including the applicant and agent, would be allowed the sum total of the time used by the objectors to speak during the hearing up to a maximum of 30 minutes.

12. In addition to the normal Planning Committee procedures, presentations would also take place by some of the consultees to the planning application; or persons from statutory and non-statutory bodies. Presentations would be invited from:

i. Transport NI ii. DARD Rivers Agency iii. DOE NIEA – Natural Environment Division iv. DOE NIEA – Historic Buildings Unit

13. Representatives from the Departments/Agencies listed would be subject to a time limit of five minutes (5) on their presentation. Planning Committee Members may ask any of those speakers for clarification on any issue of their presentation.

14. All requests to attend the hearing and requests to speak at the hearing must be registered with the Council before noon five (5) working days prior to the scheduled date of the hearing.

15. Anyone registering to speak should state whether they were a Councillor in the Borough who was not on the Planning Committee, a supporter (including the applicant/agent), or an objector, and set out the planning issues which they wished to raise. Any written information and PowerPoint presentations that they wished to be circulated to Planning Committee Members must be supplied along with the request. Late requests to speak would not be allowed, nor would material produced on the night be circulated to Members of the Planning Committee.

16. A list of persons scheduled to speak, and in which capacity, would be available 24 hours prior to the hearing.

17. The running order of speakers was proposed as follows:

i. Councillor(s) not on the Planning Committee ii. Objectors iii. Supporters including the Applicant or their Agent iv. Consultees to the application who had been invited to attend

18. At the start of the meeting the planning Case Officer dealing with the application would outline the proposed development and the processing of the application to date. 19. No decision on the application would be made at the pre-determination hearing and the application would be presented before the Planning Committee at a later date and would be subject to the normal Planning Committee procedures.

RECOMMENDED that the Planning Committee approves this report.

11

PC.06.10.15

Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Councillor Fletcher, that the Planning Committee approves this report.

The Head of Planning presented the report to Members in order to discuss the procedural suggestions for such a hearing and to seek agreement to apply to this particular application. She guided them through the principal aspects adding that pre-determination hearings were a new concept under the Planning Act.

Alderman McDowell sought clarification in terms of the technicalities for the hearings asking if they would be held on a different day to the Planning Committee and how much notice would be given of those arrangements.

The Head of Planning indicated that the day chosen would be at the behest of the Planning Committee and it would be the intention to provide as much notice as possible. She suggested that hearings could be held during the afternoon before the meeting of the Planning Committee at which the application would be determined but did not necessarily have to be held on the same day.

Alderman McDowell proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the pre- determination hearings be held on the same afternoon as the scheduled Planning Committee.

However, Alderman Irvine disagreed with that proposition, underlining the volume of possible speakers at hearings. Therefore, with no perception of the expected duration of a hearing, he ventured that they should be arranged for a different day.

The Chairman (Alderman Gibson) supported those comments noting that if a hearing was lengthy, it would be challenging for Members and Planners to remain alert for the Planning Committee and undertake a satisfactory decision making role.

Taking on board the points made, Councillor Barry recommended holding the hearing on the same day on a trial basis and if found not to be working satisfactorily, that format could be modified accordingly.

Alderman Girvan enquired about the impact of the hearings on the existing workload of planners.

The Head of Planning outlined the amount of preparation work before each monthly meeting and queried the time Members wished the hearings to be held.

In that regard, Alderman McDowell offered a commencement time of 3.00 pm or 4.00 pm should the Committee agree to hold the hearings on the same day.

The Head of Planning said she would be happy for hearings to take place between 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm on the day of the Planning Committee.

Councillor Fletcher voiced concern about point 10 in the report, whereby a period of 30 minutes would be allowed for objectors to speak, with each speaker subject to a limit of five minutes. He considered that length of time to be too brief and it should be extended to embrace occasions when there were numerous objectors.

12

PC.06.10.15

The Mayor (Alderman Graham) also thought the format should be relevant to the public who wished to attend and an adequate allocation of time should be given.

In reply, the Head of Planning detailed that the format which had been agreed for the Planning Committee would again be adhered to ensuring that a consistent process was adopted for both. That may be altered at a later date should the Committee feel it was appropriate to do so.

Councillor McIlveen endorsed the need for consistency rather than a haphazard approach. He also raised the issue of many Councillors who held full time jobs and could not easily leave their place of work during an afternoon. His preference was for another evening to be selected to hold the pre-determination hearings.

Councillors Dunne and Thompson echoed those sentiments as commencing at 7.00 pm on another evening would guarantee maximum attendance and participation and avoid the danger of overrunning into the Planning Committee slot.

In continuance, the Head of Planning was conscious of the fact that the purpose of the hearing was to enable both Planners and statutory consultees to be questioned which could invariably lead to a longer meeting.

A period of 30 minutes for objectors to speak was judged as reasonable by Councillor Barry. It was a new concept and timings could easily be revised as the process developed.

The proposal was put to the meeting and with 4 voting for and 6 against, it was declared LOST.

Councillor Thompson proposed, seconded by Councillor Fletcher that the pre- determination hearings be held on a separate evening from the Planning Committee commencing at 7.00 pm.

The proposal was put to the meeting and with 8 voting for and 4 against, it was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Fletcher, that the pre-determination hearings be held on a separate evening from the Planning Committee commencing at 7.00pm.

The Chairman (Alderman Gibson) put forward the suggestion of a Tuesday evening.

The Head of Service said that that would certainly be borne in mind.

NOTED.

13

PC.06.10.15

6. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF 1 OCTOBER 2015

The Head of Planning furnished Members with a verbal recap of the meeting held with the legal advisors appointed to the Planning Department of the Council which took place on the above date.

She explained that Gary McGhee was the Head of the Planning and Environmental Law Team within Carson McDowell, which he founded over 18 years ago. He was one of the few solicitors in Northern Ireland to specialise exclusively in the areas of planning, environmental and energy law.

He gave a presentation which touched on the following matters:

 The planning powers and planning law responsibilities that the Council now had  Decisions of the Planning Committee that could be challenged  What was a judicial review and what were the grounds for a judicial review?  The key principles of law in planning judicial reviews, including an explanation of planning judgement  Who could bring a judicial review?  Who was likely to bring a judicial review against the Planning Committee?  Bias and apparent bias with practical examples of apparent bias using cases as examples

The Head of Planning saw this as the start of many such seminars to assist the Planning Committee in carrying out its duties effectively. She was to meet with Gary McGhee again to discuss future topics to be covered and would welcome suggestions from Members in that respect.

On behalf of the Committee, Councillor Barry took the opportunity to thank Planning Officers for holding the recent workshop which provided training on the implementation of planning policy. In his opinion the DOE had delivered patchy training in the run up to the Local Government Reform which did not ably prepare and equip Members for the changes. A series of planning workshops was required for elected representatives to glean a better understanding of the grounds for objecting to an application and to value the professional judgement of Planners. This relatively new Council was still learning; former North Down and Ards Councils alongside Planning Service were now all colleagues forging new working relationships and a culture change was essential to diminish the ‘them and us’ ethos.

Alderman McDowell was also convinced that the workshop had been extremely useful and advocated the inclusion of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and pertinent changes within that training schedule. He too felt the workshops presented an ideal opportunity to formulate discussion and generate ideas.

Councillor Barry proposed that a series of training workshops in relation to planning be held for all elected representatives, which would also allow positive discussion to take place between Members and Planners and diminish the ‘them and us’ ethos. There was no seconder for the proposal.

14

PC.06.10.15

Whilst offering support to Councillor Barry’s suggestion for additional training, Councillor McIlveen did not perceive the existence of a ‘them and us’ culture. He supposed that everyone had now learned to work together and had formed a much better working relationship. Nonetheless, he recognised that some decisions of Planners were finely balanced and Members would in a minority of cases put forward a personal opinion in opposition to a Case Officer’s report.

The Mayor (Alderman Graham) did not support the changes that had occurred to the planning procedures under RPA, as Members generally agreed with the decisions of Planners 99% of the time and the system had worked well. Currently, the Planning Committee had decisions to make and opportunities to learn in what he classed as an ongoing process.

Councillor Fletcher claimed that it was a difficult Committee to serve on as momentous decisions were taken on behalf of constituents. He observed that an element of training could be given to the current Committee but that degree of competence would be lost if those Members were replaced at the Annual Meeting next year.

NOTED.

7. REPORT ON PUBLICATION OF STRATEGIC PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT (SPPS) (Appendix VII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy correspondence from DOE dated 28 September 2015 and report from the Head of Planning detailing the undernoted information:

1. The Department retained responsibility for regional planning policy, the determination of regionally significant and called-in applications, and planning legislation.

2. On Monday 28 September the Environment Minister Mark H Durkan published the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) for Northern Ireland.

3. It was a statement of the Department’s policy on important planning matters that should be addressed across Northern Ireland. It reflected the DOE Minister’s expectations for the delivery of the planning system and had been agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive and was in general conformity with the Regional Development Strategy 2035.

4. This had been described as ‘the go to guide’ for everyone involved in the local planning system. The SPPS reduced 20 separate planning policy statements to one and set out strategic subject planning policy for a wide range of planning matters including retail development, building in the countryside, creating and enhancing shared space, tourism, telecommunications and housing.

15

PC.06.10.15

5. It also provided the core planning principles to underpin delivery of the two- tier planning system with the aim of furthering sustainable development. It set the strategic direction for the new Council to bring forward detailed operational policies within future local development plans.

6. Significantly, it also set in black and white for the first time as policy, no to unconventional hydrocarbon extraction, often referred to as fracking. That could only change in the future if the Department was satisfied that there was sufficient and robust evidence on all environmental impacts of fracking.

7. The SPPS introduced a revised strategic direction for Town Centre and Retailing Policy. It advocated a ‘town centres first’ approach to the location of future retailing and town centre uses which would support and sustain vibrant town centres across Northern Ireland.

8. At present the publication of the SPPS had the effect of cancelling the following DOE publications:

. PPS 1: General Principles . PPS 5: Retailing and Town Centres . PPS 9: The Enforcement of Planning Control

9. The provisions of the SPPS would apply to the whole of Northern Ireland. Its provisions must be taken into account in the preparation of Local Development Plans (LDPs) and were material to all decisions on individual planning applications and appeals.

Transitionary Arrangements

10. The existing suite of Planning Policy Statements and the remaining provisions of ‘A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland’ would be cancelled when the Council had adopted a new Plan Strategy for the whole of the Ards and North Down Borough. However, to ensure that there was continuity in planning policy for taking planning decisions specific transitional arrangements would apply.

11. The policy provisions of the other PPSs, other than those noted above as being cancelled, were retained until such time as the Plan Strategy had been adopted, and any relevant supplementary and best practice guidance would also continue to apply.

12. Once the Council’s Plan Strategy was adopted, those existing retained policies shall cease to have effect within the Ards and North Down Borough and shall not be material from that date, whether a planning application had been received before or after that date.

13. Any conflict between the SPPS and any policy retained under the transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

16

PC.06.10.15

14. The document could be viewed/downloaded from the DOE website as follows: http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/spps.htm

RECOMMENDED that Members note this report and that further training can be provided as required.

The Head of Planning spoke to the report and emphasised the salient points for Members’ information. She believed it was vital for Members to receive training on this important planning process. The provisions of the SPPS would be tested on applications going forward and must be applied to those which were ‘live’ in the planning system and decisions reassessed accordingly.

Given the high importance of the SPPS, Alderman Smith extended a request for Members of the Planning Committee to each receive a paper copy of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Smith, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted and that Members of the Planning Committee each receive a paper copy of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement.

8. INVITATION FROM DCAL, NILGA, MINISTERIAL ADVISORY GROUP (MAG) TO: SHAPING PLACE, CHANGING LIVES – A PLACEMAKING SYMPOSIUM FOR COUNCILS (Appendix VIII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy correspondence and draft programme dated 22 October 2015 from DCAL detailing that the symposium would be held on Thursday 22 October 2015 at Mossley Hill, Newtownabbey. It would concentrate on how Community Planning and Placemaking could positively impact the lives of individuals and communities and tackle common problems such as vacant town centres and anti-social behaviour.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Dunne, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that Alderman Gibson as the Chair of the Planning Committee and two Officers attend this symposium.

9. INVITATION TO TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ASSOCIATION SEMINAR: CREATING GARDEN CITIES AND SUBURBS TODAY (Appendix IX)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy correspondence dated 29 September 2015 from TCPA detailing that it would be hosting a series of free seminars on the opportunities for creating new Garden Cities and suburbs and delivering their benefits. An event was scheduled to take place in the Ulster Hall, Belfast on Thursday 5 November 2015.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Alderman Smith, that relevant members of planning staff attend this free seminar.

17

PC.06.10.15

10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.1 Meetings of Council

Councillor McIlveen drew attention to situations that sometimes arose when the minutes of the Planning Committee were presented to full Council at the end of each month. Members who did not sit on the Committee were not privy to the full Case Officer’s reports but despite this, many proceeded to criticise the decisions undertaken. He voiced annoyance at this course of action particularly as delegated powers for decision making had been awarded to the Planning Committee.

The Chief Executive stated that the Member was correct in this assumption but regretted that Standing Orders did not dictate that such interpretations could not be broached at a Council meeting.

Councillor McIlveen pointed out that a few Members would stand up as if they could vote on the final outcome and ask to be recorded against the decision.

The Chief Executive undertook to give full consideration to the matter.

Discussion ensued and several Members shared the viewpoint that minutes were presented for accuracy and dissenting from a decision was meaningless.

In a differing stance, Councillor McClean remarked that he was unperturbed by those Members who wished to distance themselves and perhaps undermine the decisions of the Planning Committee.

In conclusion, the Chairman (Alderman Gibson) declared that all Members were entitled to attend and speak at meetings of the Planning Committee but they should inform the Planning Officer before the meeting of that intention within the specified timeframes. He concurred that minutes were put before Council for the purposes of accuracy only or for brief comment as decisions were already taken by the appropriate Committee. As the planning authority no decision could be changed or overruled at Council.

NOTED.

11. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 8.45 pm.

18

ITEM 6.2

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Environment Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 7.00 pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Councillor Boyle

Aldermen: Gibson Henry

Councillors: Armstrong Martin Cathcart Muir Cummings Roberts Edmund Smart Ferguson Wilson Leslie

Officers: Director of Environment, Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment, Head of Waste and Cleansing Services, Borough Cleansing Services Manager, Waste Collection Services Manager and Democratic Services Officer

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Chairman (Councillor Boyle) welcomed everyone to the meeting, including those present in the public gallery, and introduced all officers present. He advised that Alderman Gibson would be taking Councillor Armstrong-Cotter‟s place on the Committee during her time on maternity leave and welcomed him to the Committee.

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillor Barry.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

No declarations were made.

NOTED.

EC.7.10.15

3. “THE ROLE OF THE WASTE AND CLEANSING SERVICES DEPARTMENT” – PRESENTATION BY NIGEL MARTIN, HEAD OF WASTE AND CLEANSING SERVICES

The Head of Waste and Cleansing Services thanked the Chairman (Councillor Boyle) for the opportunity to provide a summary on the role of the Waste and Cleansing Services department. He proceeded to take Members through a PowerPoint presentation and made the following salient points:-

 The role of cleansing and waste management was to oversee waste collection services; street and other cleansing services; waste/resource management and waste strategy/planning.  The role of the waste collection services was to provide a kerbside collection service to all households in the Borough; a commercial waste collection service to over 1200 businesses; servicing of skips at the Council‟s Household Recycling Centres; a bulky household waste collection service; and the transfer of waste from Balloo Waste Transfer Station.  The Waste Collection structure comprised:- Business Manager – Ian Frazer Three Cleansing Supervisors One Waste Collection Officer Shared administrative support 43 LGV Drivers, 3 Non-LGV Drivers and 62 Cleansing Operatives Staff were based at the Waste Transfer Station, Balloo and the North Road Depot, Newtownards.  The role of the Borough Cleansing Services included the following:- Mechanical sweeping of towns and villages Manual litter picking of roads Servicing of litter bins Opening, closing and cleaning of the Council‟s public conveniences Clearance of illegal dumping Clean-ups following special events Beach cleaning (legacy North Down Borough Council only) Access to Countryside Maintenance Team Administration of dog waste bin service contract.  The Borough Cleansing Services structure comprised:- Business Manager – Alastair Kerr Three Cleansing Supervisors 55 cleansing staff comprising drivers, operatives, attendants and orderlies Shared administrative support Staff were based at the Waste Transfer Station, Balloo and the North Road Depot, Newtownards.  The role of the Waste Resources and Contracts included the following:- Operation of the Council‟s nine Household Recycling Centres (HRC) Operation of the Council‟s two Waste Transfer Stations (WTS) Management and administration of waste and recycling service contracts Development and implementation of the Council‟s Recycling Strategy Promotion and implementation of the Council‟s Waste Education and Awareness Strategy.

2

EC.7.10.15

 The Waste Resources and Contracts structure comprised:- Business Manager – Alison Curtis Two HRC and WTS Supervisors Two Waste Education and Awareness staff 30 HRC and WTS Operatives Shared administrative support Staff were based at the Waste Transfer Station, Balloo and the North Road Depot, Newtownards.  The department was forward facing – customer focussed and its goals included:- Improving accessibility and awareness of services Providing clear accurate information about services Timeliness of response Sharing resources across the services Helpful and courteous staff Managing enquiries and complaints in an effective and timely manner.  Immediate future plans included:- Revising and establishing Service Standards and Policies for the range of services Developing Service Improvement Plans Continuing to harmonise processes, services, policies and terms and conditions.  Key areas of work over the forthcoming six to twelve months included:- Resolving outstanding Human Resource issues to enable the department to move forward with new initiatives Review across all service areas to identify service improvements to better meet customer needs and to achieve efficiency savings Develop key performance indicators for the services  The department was acutely aware of its responsibility for managing approximately one third of the Council‟s annual operating budget. It was believed that through the use of technology, better utilisation of physical and human resources, and rebranding the service as a resource rather than waste management, significant savings for the Council could be realised.

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

 Reference was made to commercial waste. The Council was obliged to respond to requests to remove waste from business premises and also to issue a fee for this service as it had to cover its costs. The commercial waste collection sector often identified „clean waste‟ and targeted larger businesses resulting in only smaller businesses remaining for the Council to collect from, for example restaurants. A report would be brought to the next meeting of the Committee on commercial waste services, with a view to rolling out comprehensive recycling collections to all customers.  Reference was made to the problem of fly-tipping, in particular in the Primrose and Ballyvester areas and it was queried how this was dealt with. Complaints were logged onto the Council‟s Customer Care system known as Te-Care. A Borough Inspector was assigned to deal with the complaint and would carry out an inspection, checking for evidence of fly-tipping. The complaint was then re- assigned to the Cleansing Department who would remove any waste. Typically the problem would be addressed within 48 hours.

3

EC.7.10.15

 Fly-tipping on private land was the responsibility of the land owner.  A multiple-owner alleyway could be problematic; however it remained the Council‟s responsibility to clear if it was an adopted footway. It was sometimes difficult to identify the owner/occupier of land or the person responsible for dumping. However, where an owner could be identified, they would have to pay for the Council to remove waste. Often it was the residents who dumped waste in the communal alleyway and this had been successfully tackled in the past by officer‟s going from household to household and speaking face to face with residents. The purpose of the „door to door‟ exercise had been to educate and promote personal responsibility for keeping areas clear of waste.  The issuing of litter clearing notices had been a successful course of action.  It was confirmed that a notice could be served on statutory bodies.  Going forward, it was planned to put up posters to address illegal dumping. The posters would inform the penalty for dumping and it was also hoped that local communities would take responsibility for avoiding local littering and removal of litter with the assistance from the Council in providing them with litter pickers and other resources.  Councillor Armstrong thanked the Cleansing Team for the speedy clean-up following the recent Portaferry Gala. She asked if the sweeping of villages was timetabled and if so, could this timetable be made available on the Council‟s website. It was confirmed that there was a timetable for villages and in fact, village centres were swept on a daily basis; areas of housing were swept approximately every four weeks. However, the schedule had to be flexible to allow for factors such as staff holidays/sickness to be taken into account. Going forward Members would be furnished with a copy of the schedule.  The uptake for the Bin-ovation App had been approximately 3,000 downloads, which was a positive start to the scheme.  The Council was responsible for cleaning any roads and footpaths that were adopted by Transport NI.  Approximately 20-30% of businesses availed of the commercial waste collection service; this had decreased in recent times due to the closure of businesses as a result of the economic downturn. In addition, larger business groups had Northern Ireland-wide contracts for waste removal whereby one company provided this service province-wide.  Schools stipulated how many bins they required and paid for that amount whether they required emptying or not and they were also given a free service for collecting recycling bins. It was highlighted that 90% of school waste was easily recyclable and schools could have as many recycling bins as they required with no extra charge, on the understanding that the bins remained the property of the Council. School waste was seasonal; at the start of term there were a lot of spent boxes and at the end of term classrooms were cleared out.  All schools had signed up to the Eco-Schools Programme, which included working with a Council education officer who provided training and advice.  Going forward the Cleansing and Waste services would be evaluated and improvements made where necessary, and this included waste from schools. In some places schools recycled approximately 96/97% of their waste. The intention would be to highlight the significant savings in waste collection costs that schools (and all businesses) could achieve by reducing their grey bin waste and improving their recycling participation. There were ways to target schools and businesses to help them make more informed choices.

4

EC.7.10.15

 Alderman Gibson raised a query about the closing of Council cemeteries. He was advised that this was managed by a different department, however going forward it was planned to maximise joined-up working between departments.  Reference was made to commercial recycling. Due to contractual arrangements the legacy North Down and Ards Councils‟ services had not yet been aligned.  Charities could avail of a free service of one recycling bin per premises.  Councillor Smart raised queries about beach cleaning and also asked whether stickers could be put on recycling bins to indicate what could be put in them. In response to the query about beach cleaning the Head of Waste and Cleansing Services advised that the Parks Department would need to be involved in discussing the matter as would the NIEA, as it was vital to maintain service delivery in this area. In respect of the stickers, he advised that this had previously been done and would be considered as an important part of a new campaign going forward. He also hoped that additional materials would be included in the list of blue bin recyclables when the new contract was negotiated.

4. PROVISIONAL NORTHERN IRELAND LANDFILL ALLOWANCE SCHEME (NILAS) RECONCILIATION FOR 2014/2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 23 September 2015 from the Director of Environment stating that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) had issued draft reconciliation figures for the year 2014 – 2015 to the Council in July 2015. The combined figures from the legacy Ards and North Down Councils were as follows:

Council NILAS Biodegradable Local Utilisation/Exceedance Allowance Authority Collected of Allowance 2014/15 Municipal Waste (tonnes) (BLACMW) sent to landfill 2014/15 Ards & North 25,932 26,768 103.22% (-836 tonnes) Down BC

In order to cover the exceedance, arc21 had implemented an allowance transfer system that permitted Councils with surplus allowances to transfer them to any Council within their Waste Management Group that had a deficit. The following allowances had been transferred during September 2015 to cover the exceedance of allowance.

Council Allowances transferred (tonnes) Antrim BC 78 Ballymena BC 52 Belfast CC 360 Carrickfergus BC 52 Castlereagh BC 78 Down DC 190 Larne BC 52 Lisburn CC 78 Newtownabbey BC 78

5

EC.7.10.15

Total transferred 1018* (*as reconciliation figures are provisional, additional allowances were transferred to cover any contingency)

Under NILAS all councils would see their landfill allowances progressively reduced towards the next target year (2019 - 2020). In the case of Ards and North Down BC, the allowances were as follows, and on the basis of the 2014 - 2015 figures, the Council would exceed its allowance by almost 8,000 tonnes in 2019 - 2020.

Year 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/2020 Allowance 23,956 22,722 21,487 20,252 19,017 (tonnes) Exceedance on basis of 2,812 3,397 5,281 6,516 7,751 14/15 figure (26,768)

It would be readily apparent that if the Council did not significantly improve its diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill, it faced the prospect of annual fines in the region of £1,162,650 - (£150 per tonne).

It was also noted that it was not a given that other councils would have surplus allowances available to transfer to the Council in order to reduce the scale of its liability for financial penalties, as all councils faced similar significant reductions in their landfill allowances over the coming four years

RECOMMENDED that Members note the contents of the report, and that the Council writes to the Councils that transferred allowances expressing its thanks for their assistance.

Referring to the report, the Chairman reiterated that significant improvements were required in order for the Council to avoid the prospect of heavy fines.

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

5. SEPARATE FOOD WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 25 September 2015 from the Director of Environment stating that during a recent workshop for Members on the challenges ahead for the Borough in terms of Sustainable Waste Resource Management, the significance of food waste had been highlighted. In regard to food waste, there were a number of key issues:

1. Food waste comprised the largest fraction of kerbside collected household waste (around 26%, equating to around 14% of the total municipal waste arising in the Borough).

2. Food waste had by far the biggest environmental and financial cost implications, compared to any other waste stream.

6

EC.7.10.15

3. It was estimated that the landfill tax paid payable by the ratepayers of the Borough, if all food waste was to be discarded in the grey bin as opposed to the green and brown bins, would be in the region £1.041 million annually.

4. The net difference in cost between recycling all household food waste through the green and brown bins, compared to landfilling it through the grey bins, was estimated at £507K (based on current landfill gate fees and tax rates). By 2020, that cost differential was liable to rise to around £718K.

5. Food waste was 100% organic, biodegradable and as such was highly damaging to the environment when landfilled.

6. Food waste was wholly recyclable using the kerbside collection systems that the Council provided. The brown and green bins had been provided to every home for the collection of all compostable wastes, including:

 All food waste, raw and cooked, vegetable and meat (including bones), leftovers, plate scrapings, vegetable peelings, out of date food etc.  Garden waste  Paper napkins, kitchen roll and tissues  Shredded paper, soiled or wet card that can‟t go into the blue bin  Pet bedding (sawdust, straw/hay, shredded paper bedding etc.)  Pet litter  Pet poo

7. Unlike other aspects of recycling, where there was liable to be more understandable confusion in the minds of householders about what could and could not be recycled at the kerbside (e.g. different types of packaging etc.), the message around food waste was simple and unambiguous – i.e. all food waste is recyclable using the green and brown bins.

8. The significance of the impact of food waste on the environment and the proportion of municipal waste that it accounted for, had led the government to recently introduce the Food Waste Regulations. This placed a statutory obligation on the Council to collect food waste separately from other wastes, for recycling.

9. While the Regulations would allow the Council to fulfil its obligations to collect food waste separately, through the co-mingled organic waste brown and green bin service, it could only continue to do so where it could clearly demonstrate that this was an effective system for getting food waste out of the grey bin system. If the Council failed to do this, there was a very real possibility that a completely separate food waste collection system would be imposed upon the Council, which would entail the deployment of an extra complement of Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCVs) in addition to those already operated – at an extra cost to ratepayers running into £millions.

In the context of the above drivers for change, it was now proposed that a major campaign be launched to focus on the diversion of food waste from the grey bins and into the existing green and brown bins. The key features of this would be:

7

EC.7.10.15

a. Introducing a ban on the placing of food waste into the grey bins. This would be communicated using a high profile, multifaceted PR and education campaign. The campaign would include the application of permanent labelling to the grey bins as well as the green and brown bins – providing a constant reminder to householders „at the point of disposal‟ that food waste must not be discarded in the grey bin, but rather must be placed in the green and brown bins for recycling. b. Monitoring of grey bins as well as the brown and green recycling bins in regard to food waste disposal, and the use of labels on grey bins to notify householders where we note that food waste has been incorrectly placed in that bin. c. Providing practical assistance to householders with the separation of food waste from other waste in the kitchen, by supplying free compostable kitchen food waste caddy liners. These could be bought in bulk by the Council much more cost effectively than the retail price paid by householders in the high street; the estimated annual cost to council would be approximately £135,000. The initial revenue cost in year 1 could be accommodated within budget, as a consequence of savings projected through recycling of street sweepings; on an on-going basis the cost would be funded from some of the landfill tax savings realised through diversion of food waste from the grey bins.

It was considered that this element of the scheme would be a key feature in securing buy-in from householders, in terms of complying with the grey bin food waste ban. d. Providing a free brown or green bin to householders who did not already have one. For properties that did not have a garden and did not wish to take a 240 litre wheeled bin, a 25 litre outside food waste bin would be provided for presentation of food waste at the kerbside for collection by crews along with the green and brown bins. The cost of this was unknown at this stage, although was likely to be very modest given that the Council‟s standard approach had been to offer all homes a green/brown bin on an on-going basis and most should therefore already have had one. e. Provide a free kitchen food waste caddy to households who need one. Again, the cost of this was presently unknown but should be modest for the reasons already stated in regard to the wheeled bin. f. Launch a dedicated „Recycling Hotline‟ and dedicated email contact address for recycling comments/queries/requests (such as „[email protected]‟).

It was proposed that the scheme would be launched as soon as possible within the following couple of months.

It was intended to bring a wider report to the November Environment Committee, on an overall Sustainable Waste Resource Management Strategy for the Borough.

RECOMMENDED that that the Council agrees to the implementation of the above arrangements for recycling of household food waste.

8

EC.7.10.15

The Chairman reiterated that failure to deal with food waste more effectively would result in hefty fines for the Council.

Welcoming the report, Councillor Cathcart queried how enforcement of the arrangements would work.

The Director advised that there were several features of the programme including stickers on bins, issuing each household with a kitchen caddy and compostable liners complemented by an informative leaflet. The leaflet would highlight that due to legal reasons households were no longer permitted to put food waste in the grey bin. The grey bins would have a sticker stating that it was not to be used for food waste and the compost bin/caddy would have a sticker stating that it was to be used for all food waste. Households would be clearly informed of why this was necessary and that their grey bins would be checked for food waste. If food waste was noted in the grey bin, in the first instance a tag would be attached to the bin handle, reminding the household that food waste should not be put in the grey bin and that while on this occasion the bin would be collected, if the problem continued future service would be affected i.e. the grey bin would not be emptied. It was hoped that a phased approach would have the desired effect.

Councillor Cathcart advised that Mid and East Antrim Borough Council had not taken a phased approach and he was glad the Council would be. He welcomed the programme and in particular the savings to be made by reducing the level of landfill tax. He asked how the message would be communicated to the public.

The Director responded that a succinct and informative leaflet was being developed and would have a three-pronged message. It would inform on (1) the legal requirement, (2) the avoidable cost of £millions in landfill tax and (3) the Council demonstrating good civil leadership and environmental stewardship.

Councillor Roberts stated that at a recent Green Party meeting he had been made aware that there was confusion about what should go into the food bin and composting bin and believed that more effective communication with citizens was required. He also suggested that the aforementioned leaflet should lead with the cost benefits and end with the legal requirement instead of the order proposed.

The Director advised the matter had to be brought to Member‟s attention urgently because of the scale of the challenge and the potential impact. He continued that the campaign would target food waste with a clear and simple message.

Alderman Henry was interested to hear that food waste could go in the green bin. He expressed caution about how the message was communicated and believed it would be a difficult situation to monitor and control.

Rising in support Councillor Leslie queried how many people in the Borough were without a green bin, for example those households who lived in apartment blocks. He asked if any feedback had been received on the kitchen caddies/liners. In response the Director advised that the policy of both legacy Councils had been to provide green/brown bins and therefore the majority of households in the Borough had one but did not necessarily use it for food waste and this was particularly the

9

EC.7.10.15 case during the winter period when it wasn‟t being used for garden waste. Households could request a bin or a caddy from the Council and this would be supplied free of charge. For properties with no outside space, a larger (25l) caddy would be provided and this could be left for collection alongside the wheelie bins and would be emptied on the same collection day.

Concurring with Member‟s comments, Councillor Armstrong advised that many households in rural areas already did their own composting. She cautioned on a message that would „tell people what to do‟ without a grassroots education approach that was more likely to be successful and achieve buy-in from residents. She suggested working with the community to instigate and maintain the change and that using pictograms, for example, could be an effective communication tool.

The Director agreed that a dual approach was required, engaging with communities to get their buy-in and take the programme forward. He suggested that officers from the Environment Directorate would be liaising closely with officers from Community and Wellbeing, working in conjunction with Housing Associations, Community Groups and Schools. He reiterated that education was fundamentally important and that while some people would be inspired by environmental arguments, some people would be motivated by financial drivers and others by legal drivers. He also stressed that if the Council did not provide effective collection of food waste the DOE could impose a separate collection system costing the Council £millions. Therefore the Council must do all in its power to demonstrate that it could effectively achieve separate collection of food waste using its existing green and brown bin compostable waste collection system. The Director added that it would be disingenuous not to inform the ratepayer of these potential consequences of failing to achieve the necessary food waste recycling outcomes.

The Chairman congratulated the Committee for their positive comments and stated it was an important committee in terms of decision making for spending and making savings. He was pleased that the Committee had unanimous agreement and stated that ratepayers would not thank the Council if it failed to do what it should have done when it had the opportunity now to address the matter. He implored Members to use their knowledge to spread the message about what the Council was proposing.

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

6. REVIEW OF ARC21 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (Appendix I)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 23 September 2015 from the Director of Environment stating that as a result of Local Government Reform, the Department had requested Arc21 to submit a revised Waste Management Plan to ensure that it covered the geographic area of the new Arc21 Waste Management Group.

The Department had written back to Arc21 confirming that following a detailed assessment, the revised Plan complied with paragraph (3) of Article 23 of the Waste and Contaminated Land (NI) Order 1997.

10

EC.7.10.15

In order to complete the statutory process the individual councils that made up the Arc21 Waste Management Group had to “determine” the revised Waste Management Plan by taking it through the Council governance cycle.

A copy of the Executive Summary was attached and an electronic version of the full plan was available on request. The executive summary and full version would be uploaded to the Council website following approval by Council.

The only significant change to the previous version of the Plan was the geographical change as a result of Newry and Mourne District Council merging with Down District Council to form Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, and its decision to join the Arc21 Waste Management Group.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the revised Arc21 Waste Management Plan.

Councillor Muir commented that planning permission for the waste incinerator plant in Hightown had been refused and he queried how this would impact Arc21‟s proposals. In response, the Director stated that the Council had five years until the 2020 target and intended to take firm and proactive measures to ensure its targets were achieved. He continued that the most effective recycling was done at the kerbside and therefore this should be encouraged. It was currently unknown what the final outcome of the proposal for the energy from waste plant would be.

Councillor Muir advised he had a further query on this item but it would need to be raised „in committee‟. It was agreed to do this.

Rising in support of the proposal Alderman Gibson commented that it was easy to achieve the first 30% target for recycling however after that it became more difficult. He believed a waste energy plant was an essential part of dealing with waste and as such Arc21 would be giving serious consideration to its next steps, along with consulting each Council. He continued that the Council had sent 836 tonnes of waste to landfill sites which had been outside of its target and this had resulted in needing a bailout by Arc21. He queried whether the Council‟s processes were as cost effective as they could be and stated this may need to be reviewed in order to meet current and future targets.

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

7. REFURBISHMENT OF WAR MEMORIALS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 16 September 2015 from the Director of Environment reminding Members that the Centenary of World War 1 would be commemorated in 2018. Ards and North Down Borough Council was responsible for eleven war memorials, situated in:

 Ballygowan  Ballyhalbert  Ballywalter

11

EC.7.10.15

 Bangor (Ward Park)  Comber  Donaghadee  Greyabbey  Groomsport  Holywood  Millisle  Newtownards (Court Square)

The memorials varied greatly in age and condition, but most could benefit from at least some form of refurbishment. In addition, it would seem fitting to mark the Centenary celebrations with some improvements and potentially add a memorial plaque marking the occasion.

The scale and range of works would vary from monument to monument, but it was envisaged that the scope of the project could include:

 Monuments and plaques cleaned/restored  Boundary walls/railings replaced where appropriate  Area around the monument resurfaced  New seating, gates and railings provided  Additional plaques installed (to mark the centenary, or to update the names of the fallen where required)  Lighting installed, where feasible

The limitations/exclusions of the project would be:

 No new memorials would be built  Existing monuments at memorials would not be replaced, unless deemed absolutely necessary by a condition survey.

Although the “construction phase” of the project would be relatively straightforward, the design development stage would require input from other stakeholders and therefore the project was liable to take around eighteen months to complete.

A budget of £20k was available in the current financial year for War Memorial maintenance and refurbishment, and some of this could be used to facilitate an assessment of potential refurbishment works. Any project costs ultimately agreed by the Council following this assessment could be built into the 2016-17 or 2017-18 capital estimates.

RECOMMENDED that approval be granted to proceed with the initial stages of the project; utilising the existing capital budget. Once potential refurbishment schemes have been developed, a further report will be presented for consideration (including capital budget requirements).

Councillor Smart thanked officers for taking the initiative to refurbish the war memorials.

12

EC.7.10.15

Councillor Martin also echoed this comment and thanked officers for the speedy restoration of the memorial in Groomsport following its recent vandalism. He also passed on the thanks of the Groomsport Remembrance Committee who were delighted to see the memorial cleaned. He continued that the bleaching agent used to clean the memorial had also improved its general condition. Furthermore he stated that the refurbishment of the memorials had also provided the opportunity to update the names of the fallen. He suggested involving the Royal British Legion as it was an important key stakeholder and could also provide advice and assistance about the restoration of, and other suitable additions to, the war memorials.

The Director confirmed that external support would be used to help officers in assessing the condition of memorials and potential for improvements.

Concurring with Member‟s comments, Councillor Muir commented that the memorial in Donaghadee was looking particularly good, following the recent completion of the public realm works. He commented that the addition of names had to be treated carefully as there had to be consistency and a robust approach so as not to cause offence or distress.

Councillor Edmund commented that the war memorial in Portavogie was not on the list and the Director confirmed it would be added on.

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

8. PROPOSED STREET NAMING

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 24 August 2015 from the Director of Environment providing the following street naming proposals:-

Proposed Street Naming – Railway Lane, Comber

An apartment block comprising of twelve dwellings was currently under construction on lands behind 47a Railway Street, Comber and was accessed by a small lane accessed from both Railway Street and Brownlow Street, Comber. The developer had suggested Railway Lane which was in keeping with the general neighbourhood.

RECOMMENDED that the new name of Railway Lane be adopted.

Proposed Street Naming - Bridgelea, Conlig

A continuation of the Bridgelea development comprising of 43 dwellings was currently under construction on lands at Bridgelea Park, Conlig. The developer had suggested Bridgelea Manor and Bridgelea Way as new street names, which was in keeping with the general neighbourhood and the existing development.

RECOMMENDED that the new names of Bridgelea Manor and Bridgelea Way be adopted.

13

EC.7.10.15

Proposed Street Naming – Forthill, Bangor

A development comprising fourteen dwellings was currently under construction on lands at 17 Forthill Parade, Bangor. The developer had suggested Forthill Lane which was in keeping with the general neighbourhood.

RECOMMENDED that the new name of Forthill Lane be adopted.

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

9. RESULT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS – FILE DR 7043

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 22 September 2015 from the Director of Environment giving the following update:-

Dogs NI Order 1983

At Newtownards Magistrates Court in September 2015 Mrs Anne Gibson of 12 Ballydrain Road, Comber was convicted of offences relating to two dogs straying, two dogs attacking livestock and keeping two dogs without a licence. Mrs Gibson was fined a total of £500 and ordered to pay £365.69 costs and expenses. In relation to the losses sustained by the livestock owner which had amounted to £11,400 the Magistrate had inferred that this matter be dealt with by way of civil proceedings. The Magistrate had also ordered that Dog Control Conditions be placed on one of the dogs (the second having been rehomed) so that it was leashed and muzzled when in a public place.

Litter NI Order 1994

At Newtownards Magistrates Court in August 2014 Stephen Cunningham of 3 Stirling Avenue, Newtownards was convicted of depositing litter in the Ards Shopping Centre Car Park, Newtownards. Mr Cunningham had been fined £60 and ordered to pay £172 costs and a £15 offender levy.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

In response to a query from Councillor Armstrong, the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment advised that the Council‟s Public Relations office would produce a news release on the results of court proceedings and the action that was taken. He continued that 115 fixed penalty notices had been issued for dog fouling, straying dogs, littering and having no licence since April 2015.

Referring to cases of livestock worrying, Councillor Cummings asked if there was a way to track civil proceedings. The Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment responded that Officers were often called as witnesses in civil cases or were called upon to provide information but were not automatically informed of the outcome of civil cases.

14

EC.7.10.15

Councillor Cathcart queried how litter patrols were managed. The Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment advised that in the first instance Officers responded to service requests from Members, the public and cleansing staff. Areas blighted with litter, such as fast food restaurant areas, were well known to staff and were pro-actively targeted by the Council and with assistance from the food establishments. In addition, offences were sometimes observed and then enforcement action was taken immediately. He reminded Members that Borough Inspectors were responsible for litter control, dog control, investigating dog attacks, byelaw enforcement and other issues, however resources were an issue. He reported that the Council had recently employed additional Environmental Wardens through contract to tackle dog fouling, litter, dog exclusion orders and any subsequent dog control order introduced by the Council, and the scheme would commence in November 2015.

Rising in support Alderman Henry stated that although many dog owners were responsible in their care for the environment, others had to be further educated and the consequences of offending needed to be better publicised.

The Director commented that it was often difficult to detect the actual offence of a person allowing their dog to foul and then failing to clean up. He noted that dog straying had been identified as a big part of this problem as most dog owners were responsible when actually out walking with their dog. Straying dogs would inevitably foul in a public place whilst out straying, and for this reason among others, a zero tolerance to dog straying offences (with the issue of fixed penalty notices) was a major part of the Council‟s approach to tackling the dog fouling problem.

In response to a query from Councillor Ferguson, the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment confirmed that fixed penalty notices had been issued for littering of cigarette butts. He also confirmed that a quarterly report on the above matters would be circulated to Members through the Committee.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Ferguson, seconded by Councillor Armstrong, that the report be noted.

10. OFF-STREET CAR PARKING: FUTURE DELIVERY OPTIONS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 22 September 2015 from the Director of Environment stating that the purpose of this report was to seek Committee approval on the recommended optimum service delivery method for off- street car parks across the eleven council sector post 31 October 2016.

Background

The transfer of the Off Street Parking functions from the DRD to local councils had occurred on 1 April 2015 by virtue of the Off Street Parking (Functions of District Councils) Act 2015.

In preparation for the transfer, it had been agreed that local government would establish a Regional Off Street Parking Group (a sub-group of the Local Government

15

EC.7.10.15

Chief Executive‟s Group) to take forward the operational actions required to ensure the smooth transfer of the function and assets on 1 April 2015.

At the last meeting of the Regional Group on 30 June 2015 the representatives from the councils had examined a detailed options paper covering a variety of possible service models for the delivery of off street parking after October 2016 with a view to making a recommendation to the LGCEG on a preferred way forward.

Options for Future Delivery Models

The Regional sub group had met in June 2015 to review the potential service delivery options for post 31 October 2016. The options considered had covered a variety of possible service delivery models ranging from the as is Agency Agreement, to the internalisation of the function within each council to the externalisation of all aspects of the service via an alternative means.

The Group had unanimously agreed to support the option to maintain the status quo and enter into discussions with the DRD to extend the Agency Agreement and the Technical Specification for all councils for a period of three years.

This option would extend the Agency Agreement with DRD but would seek flexibility with respect to aspects that councils normally delivered in house - such as cleaning and maintenance of planted areas.

It had been proposed that the Agency Agreement be extended for three years with an option to extend if required until the end of the NSL contract.

There were a number of factors which had contributed to the selection of this option by the Sub-Group and these were listed below:

. This was a new function transferred to the councils and they were still learning about the operating business and given the dates decisions were required by, it was still very early for councils to make a call on what changes would be for the best. To date there had been no significant issues with the Agency Agreement and no complaints from the public. . New council structures and service models were still in a state of transition and more time may be required to decide on the most effective and efficient arrangements for the management of off-street car parking within other corporate agendas. . Continuing with the existing Agency Agreement would mean minimal change for the councils as there was significant work to redesign the service. Also, the detailed work and negotiations in terms of developing and reaching agreement on the Agency Agreement and Technical Specification had only recently been completed. . The timeframes for agreeing and implementing a new service delivery model at this stage were extremely tight and may have left councils vulnerable if the successful implementation was not completed on time to the required standard. . Remaining with the status quo would ensure continuity of service for the public. It would also mean that significant officer time would be saved and the considerable procurement costs of such an exercise would be avoided.

16

EC.7.10.15

. Given the size and scope of the current contract that DRD had procured, the Council officers on the regional group were of the view that the Council was getting economies of scale and therefore receiving value for money in this contract. If arrangements were to change each council would have to consider how effective and efficient a new service delivery would be.

A final key element in reaching this conclusion had been that an extended / renegotiated Agency Agreement and Technical Specification would allow the council‟s time to determine the objectives to be achieved from car parking and consider and develop a long term parking approach or strategy for the future benefit of their districts.

Back up option

A further backup option had also been agreed in the event that the DRD was unwilling to continue to provide the back office Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) processing as part of the agreement post Oct 2016. This option would involve the separate procurement of PCN processing with IT support while drawing on the current NSL contract through a new Agency Agreement with DRD.

Conclusion

The Sub Group had concluded that to move away from the current arrangements and either go through a separate procurement exercise or bring in house would be costly, complicated and time consuming given the experience and knowledge of the local authorities in this function. In addition, such a move away from the current Agency Agreement and Technical Specification would have required councils to acquire alternative provision of each of the aspects currently covered by both the DRD and NSL as set out below:

The DRD element of the Agency Agreement and Technical Specification covered:

 Contract Management of NSL  PCN processing including staff costs / challenges and appeals process / IT systems and support / collection of PCN income banking and administration (including CC charges) / stationary / legal fees / DVA costs  Communications  Reconciliation of income streams (cash / season tickets / cashless payments)  Queries  Audit checks of income streams  Management information reports

The NSL element covered:

 Traffic attendants deployment including enforcement patrols / issuing PCNs / Equipment / Uniforms / attendance at appeals / training / supervision / management / administration / stationary / office overhead etc.  P&D machine maintenance including servicing / parts & labour / tickets etc. Cash collection, reconciliation and banking including staff / premises / banking charges / vehicles / insurance etc. 17

EC.7.10.15

 Cleaning including litter picking / mechanical sweeps/ annual mechanical sweep covering vehicles / materials / insurances and so on  Plant maintenance  Annual mechanical sweep  Signage provision  Clamping and removal

As well as the inclusion of these elements in any future delivery model, consideration had also been given to the financial impacts of change, HR aspects such as TUPE, the significant change the councils had already encountered and would further encounter with the transfer of regeneration in 2016, and the officer time that would be required to ensure councils were in a position to deliver this function through an alternative method.

Financial and Resource Implications

The financial implications were not known at this time but updates would be brought as and when negotiations began / progressed with the DRD. The DRD would enter into negotiations with the supplier upon endorsement from the eleven councils and would provide indicative costing as soon as they were known. Officer time would be required to organise and undertake the negotiations including officers from Environmental Health, Legal Services, Financial Services and the LGR Office. Other specialist officers may be called upon if required.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee approves the following proposal: That the Regional Off Street Parking Sub-group enters into discussions with the DRD to extend the Agency Agreement and Technical Specification for all councils, for the delivery of off street parking for a further period of 3 years - with the option to extend beyond this time if required.

Councillor Edmund stated that the service delivery proposal was the most expedient both for the Council and citizens of the Borough.

In response to a query from Councillor Muir about pricing arrangements, the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment advised that negotiations had commenced between Transport NI and NSL in respect of this. He added that an update report would be brought to the Committee in due course.

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

11. UPDATE: ENVIRONMENT AND DOG CONTROL EDUCATION PROGRAMMES

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 22 September 2015 from the Director of the Environment stating that as part of an on-going programme to promote responsible dog ownership, civic pride and environmental awareness the Neighbourhood Environment Team had continued to deliver a range of programmes and initiatives as summarised below:-

18

EC.7.10.15

 12 August 2015 Donaghadee – a dog awareness and fun day during which officers had promoted the Green Dog Walkers scheme and responsible dog ownership  14 August 2015 - a Safe Around Dogs programme to a vulnerable adults group linked to St Mark‟s Church, Newtownards  10 July 2015 - groups from Comber, West Winds and Ballywalter had carried out litter picks  24 July 2015 – Auld Bangor Historical Society had completed a litter pick of the Seacliff Road area of Bangor  17 August 2015 - a litter and environmental control presentation to 7 to 10 year olds from Stepping Stones Day Nursery, Bangor followed by a litter pick and tour of the walled garden, Bangor.

The Live Here Love Here programme had been re-launched in August 2015. The programme was managed by Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful and supported by the DoE, NI Tourist Board and six Councils including Ards and North Down Borough Council. The campaign consisted of promotional activity including TV, poster and bus advertising, a social media presence and a small grants scheme which saw half of the Council‟s contribution of £23,000 to the campaign being returned to the Borough through local community based environmental improvement projects.

Applications to apply for the small grants scheme closed on 29 September 2015 and details of the projects submitted and which had been successful would be reported to the Committee in due course.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

Councillor Cummings queried whether offenders had ever been referred to a training class, as he believed this could be an effective method similar to the course used to deal with driving offences. In response, the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment advised that while this was an option, it had never been implemented and reminded Members that the Council ran a Good Citizen Dog Scheme.

Referring to half of the Council‟s contribution of £23,000 to the campaign being returned to the Borough through local projects, he queried what would happen if there were not enough applicants to the scheme. The Director replied that this was unlikely as currently the small grants scheme was oversubscribed; however if this did happen then more applicants would be sought.

Councillor Muir thanked officers for the report, as he had previously requested such a report, adding that he believed education and enforcement worked hand in hand.

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

19

EC.7.10.15

12. DRAFT ELECTRIC VEHICLE (ECARNI) CHARTER OF COMMITMENT (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 22 September 2015 from the Director of Environment stating that the Department of Environment had written to all Councils requesting an agreement in principle at this stage, to a draft Charter demonstrating the Council‟s commitment to promoting the use of Ultra Low Emission Vehicles. The Department was making a Northern Ireland bid to OLEV (Office for Low Emission Vehicles) for funding to significantly increase the uptake of electric vehicles. These Charters from Councils would demonstrate clearly to OLEV that the Northern Ireland bid had their commitment and backing.

It was anticipated that the details of all EV Charters would be finalised (and signed off by Councils and Minister(s) as part of PR/Marketing) in further discussions between all of the partners and OLEV if the Department heard that the Northern Ireland bid had been successful. Notification of this was due in December 2015.

A copy of the draft Charter was attached.

RECOMMENDED that the Council agrees in principle to the draft Electric Vehicle Charter of Commitment and notifies the Department of Environment accordingly.

Councillor Roberts commented that he was an E-Car driver and believed it was an important initiative to support and the Council should lead the way. He continued that the uptake on electric vehicles was increasing and as such, a comprehensive network of charging stations across Northern Ireland was required.

(Councillor Martin left the meeting at this stage – 8.25pm)

In response to a query from Councillor Wilson, the Director advised that the UK Government had made a bid in respect of funding for Ultra Low Emission Vehicles. He continued that all that was required from the Council at this stage to support the bid for funding was a demonstration „in principle‟ that it agreed to the draft Electric Vehicle Charter of Commitment.

Councillor Leslie stated that, while he supported the proposal in principle, he was not convinced that at this stage there was enough uptake of electric vehicles in Northern Ireland to warrant more investment, as more people were opting for hybrid cars. He called for statistical evidence including information on the cost of electric vehicles, the battery life and the cost of battery recycling. He was concerned about what the Council would be committing itself to.

In response to queries about what the Council was being asked to agree to, the Director reiterated that the agreement in principle was purely to strengthen the Department‟s Northern Ireland bid to the OLEV and was not legally binding. He added that the Council would not be signing the Charter at this time and a further report would follow in due course.

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

20

EC.7.10.15

13. BUILDING CONTROL ACTIVITIES – AUGUST 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 21 September 2015 from the Director of Environment providing information on the principal activities of the Building Control Section in relation to the enforcement of the Building Regulations during the month of August 2015.

(a) Number of Applications Received

Full Plan Application Received 2015/2016

100 90

80 70 60 50 40 30

Numberof Applications 20 10 0 April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March

May June July Aug Building Notice Applications 210 257 183 236 Regularisation Applications 49 51 40 50

21

EC.7.10.15

(b) Fee Income

Total Monthly Income from Building Control Fees 90000 80000 70000

60000 50000 40000 Income£ 30000 20000 10000 0 April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March 2015/2016

Total monthly fees received August 2015 £53,327.00 Cumulative monthly income to date £303,389.00 Forecast Income to date £241,200.00

(c) Department Output August 2015

Full Plans Approvals issued 48 Full Plans Rejections Notices issued 42 Building Notices certificates issued 132 Regularisation Certificates issued 48

(d) Inspections

Total Inspections 1236

e) Dangerous Structures

Initial Inspections 2 Re-inspections 1 Recommended for Legal Action 0

22

EC.7.10.15

(f) Property Certificates

Property Certificate Income 2015/2016 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000

12,000 10,000 8,000 Income£ 6,000 4,000 2,000 - April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March 2015/2016

Received August 2015 257 Processed 257 Building Control Average Response Time 0.1 days

Monthly fee income £15,420.00 Monthly fee forecast £13,700.00

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

The Director highlighted to Members that the monthly fee income was significantly greater than the amount forecast, which was based on the previous year‟s actual income.

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

(Councillor Martin entered the meeting at this stage – 8.36pm)

14. LONDONDERRY PARK DOG CONTROL ORDERS (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 28 September 2015 from the Director of Environment stating that

At the meeting of the Environment Committee held on 3 September 2015 consideration was given to proposals to amend Dog Control Orders in place for Londonderry Park. The proposed orders would result in a traffic light scheme being introduced which would see dogs excluded from the children‟s play parks and sports pitches, marked red on the attached plan, see Appendix 1, dogs to be kept on a lead in the car park, main path network and family recreational areas, marked orange and

23

EC.7.10.15 dogs off lead in the remaining areas marked green. A further condition was proposed to allow officers to request a dog owner to put their dog on a lead in the green areas where the dog was causing a nuisance or danger to other park users.

The Committee agreed to hold a site meeting to review the proposals with the meeting subsequently being held on 23 September 2015.Following discussion at the site meeting, consideration of comments from those who have objected to the proposals and an explanation from the Head of Leisure as to the potential future use of the park, revised proposals have been developed.

It was proposed that the traffic light system would remain but that there would be an expansion of the areas marked in green where dogs can be allowed off the lead, see revised plan in Appendix 2. In essence the proposed recreational space to the left hand side of the hockey pitches would become green while the space intended to be used for dogs near the play area would become the new recreational space and therefore dogs would be required to be kept on a lead. This amended proposal reflects the concern that dogs off lead may be in too close a proximity to the children‟s play areas while also providing a greater space for dogs to be off lead.

It was further proposed that the outer path/trim track would also be marked in green allowing owners to exercise their dog off lead around the whole circumference of the park. This proposal further expands the areas in the park where dogs may be off lead.

The revised proposals will not satisfy all dog walkers that use the park, in particular those owners who want to use the grass sports pitches. The revised proposals have however tried to address some of the dog owners‟ concerns while also enabling the Council to manage this shared multifunctional facility.

RECOMMENDED, in view of the above, that the Council introduces the following Dog Control Orders

 The Dogs Exclusion (Londonderry Park, children‟s play area and sports pitches etc.) Order 2015, as marked in red on the revised attached plan see Appendix 2  The Dogs on Leads (Londonderry Park, path networks and car parks etc.) Order 2015, as marked in orange on the revised plan see Appendix 2, and  The Dogs on Leads by Direction (Londonderry Park) Order 2015

The Chairman advised that the report had followed a recent site meeting with some Members, dog walkers and users of the facilities at Londonderry Park. He continued that a petition with approximately 300 signatures had been handed to him at the site meeting, adding that the recommendation was intended to treat all users of Londonderry Park in a fair and balanced way.

The Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment reported that consideration had been given to all comments made at the site meeting and this was reflected in the above proposals.

24

EC.7.10.15

Councillor Armstrong commented that, while it was an emotive subject, she believed the proposals provided a fair amount of space to all users of the park, for example, dog walkers and sports facility users. Residents had been given the opportunity to voice their concerns and the original proposal had been amended to reflect some of the comments made.

In response to a query from Councillor Roberts about an area which had previously been designated „dogs to be kept on a lead‟ and was now „no dogs permitted‟, the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment advised that this area provided access from the changing rooms to the pitches and was the reason for the designation. He added this area could potentially be planted with bedding plants.

Alderman Gibson queried why the reason for changing the designation of this area had not been detailed in the report. The matter was discussed at length with several Members that had attended the site meeting confirming the reason had been as stated by the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment above. It was subsequently agreed to adopt the recommendation on the proviso that the reason for the re-designation would be verified at the Council meeting in October, when the minutes were ratified.

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

15. MARKETS IN NEWTOWNARDS AND BANGOR

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 22 September 2015 from the Director of Environment stating that the Council currently operated three markets in the Borough:-

 Ards Saturday Market, Conway Square, Newtownards  Bangor Wednesday Market, ASDA car park, Bangor  Harvest Fair, Conway Square, Newtownards (last Wednesday in September annually).

The Ards Market and the Harvest Fair were operated by the Ards Saturday Market Cooperative Ltd through tenders with the Council. The Cooperative which was made up of the traders themselves and who had vested interest in its success, ran and managed the market, ensured that overheads were minimised and market rules adhered to. The existing tender for the Saturday market had been due to expire in March 2015 but Council approval had been obtained to extend the contract for one year until 31 March 2016. The Harvest Fair tender had concluded following the Fair held on 23 September 2015.

The Council currently received £30,000 per annum from the Saturday market and £200 for each annual Harvest Fair. Both the Saturday Market and Harvest Fair were seen as very active and vibrant.

Bangor Market was operated directly by the Council. The cost to the Council was currently in excess of £6,000 per annum (this did not include the cleaning costs).

25

EC.7.10.15

Initial discussions had been held with representatives from the markets to consider putting the service out to tender. The market operators had expressed strong opposition to any change to the Bangor operation and had expressed concern that a private operator would not be able to run the market profitably for a number of historical reasons.

It was recognised that Bangor Market had been facing difficulties for many years due, in part, to changes in the customer base, the fact that mid-week markets were less attractive and that the original strong market never recovered from the impact of moving to allow the construction of the ASDA (formerly Safeway) supermarket.

It was considered that certain measures could be put in place to try to improve the working of the Bangor Market and make it less costly to operate; such as making the traders responsible for removing their waste.

The Ards market had proven a good example of what the traders/private market operator could achieve when they managed their business. Developing a similar model for market services across the Borough appeared a good approach and worth testing through a tendering exercise. It should however be noted that as there was a Market Superintendent employed for 8 hours on a Wednesday to run the Bangor market, TUPE considerations could arise.

RECOMMENDED that the Council tenders for the provision of Market Services for the:

 Ards Saturday Market,  Bangor Wednesday Market, and the  Harvest Fair, (last Wednesday in September annually).

Any contract should be awarded for a minimum of 3 years.

Councillor Cummings advised that he had witnessed lethal weapons (crossbows) for sale at a market recently and he asked what guidelines existed in respect of the sale of such items.

The Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment advised that the approach to date in dealing with the sale of illegal goods had been to take immediate action, and this practice would continue when illegal goods were identified. He continued that the Council would work with traders to address matters as they arose in the markets and the shops, adding that any matters of concern would also be highlighted to the PSNI to consider what action could be taken. He further stated that while it was illegal to sell a crossbow to a minor, there was no prohibition on the overall sale of such items.

In response to a query from Councillor Armstrong, the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment advised that Ards market traders were happy for the market to be operated by the Cooperative. He continued, however, that Bangor market traders were reluctant to take the same approach, even though it had

26

EC.7.10.15 proved to be successful in Ards. It was hoped that this approach would rejuvenate the Bangor market and rectify the decline experienced over recent years.

Councillor Roberts commented that the location of the Bangor market was not as advantageous as the market in Ards and asked whether consideration could be given to relocating the market. The Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment advised that the legacy North Down Borough Council had considered alternative sites for the market, and while none had been identified the option to relocate would still be considered.

(Councillor Muir left the meeting at this stage – 9.02pm)

Members discussed the matter at length and in particular the location of the Bangor market and its operating times. It was noted that the market was predominantly enjoyed by the elderly and it provided a service to them in terms of both goods and socialising. It was also highlighted by Alderman Gibson that the Ards market generated a minimum of £30,000 per annum whereas the Bangor market cost the Council in excess of £6,000 per annum.

In response to a query the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment advised that further clarification was required on the legal situation in respect of the contract with ASDA for the use of its car park to facilitate the market and this would be sought.

(Councillor Cathcart left the meeting at this stage – 9.10pm)

Referring to the contract with ASDA, the Director advised that there were legal aspects to the tendering process and it was prudent for the Council to check all such aspects prior to entering into any contract.

(Councillor Cathcart entered the meeting at this stage – 9.12pm)

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

(Councillor Ferguson left the meeting at this stage 9.13pm)

16. RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ROBERTS – ASB IN WINDSOR GARDENS, BANGOR

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 28 September 2015 from the Director of Environment stating that he had prepared the following report in response to the Motion being referred to the Committee by the Council.

“That the Council notes the high number of complaints of anti-social behaviour in Windsor Gardens/Railwayview Street area of Bangor due to the congregation of groups of young people at the wooded area at the bottom of these two streets and asks that a report be brought back to assess the cost and effectiveness of:

27

EC.7.10.15

1. clearing the dense conifers and replacing with native broad leave trees to improve visibility whilst also enhancing biodiversity, and

2. fencing the area off to prevent groups from congregating in the area."

The Ards and North Down Community Safety Team was aware of on-going complaints concerning ant-social behaviour occurring in this area. The main reason for complaint was that youths congregated in the area to drink alcohol leading to other related issues such as noise, litter and criminal damage. Further reports had also been received in respect of drug taking in this locality, however the Team had no evidence to support these claims.

A review of the area had been carried out in respect of the provision of fencing to prevent unauthorised access. The estimated cost to provide a 60 metre 1.8 metre high ibex fencing including double gates for maintenance was £7,500. Although this fencing would prevent access to the present site used by youths it was likely that it would in itself be subject to vandalism while also possibly displacing the anti-social behaviour from its present position to another site in the immediate locality.

As demonstrated in the photographs below the site was relatively overgrown. The North Down legacy Council in the past had maintained the area, carrying out some work three to four times a year and indeed had planted the conifers referred to in the notice of motion. The site did not however belong to the Council, nor, as had been suggested, did it belong to the NI Transport Holding Company and the land was in fact unregistered.

28

EC.7.10.15

It had been noted that the removal of the conifers and the cutting back of some of the vegetation would open the site up making it less attractive for those who congregated in the area while also making it easier for the police and Community Safety Team to monitor the site. It was noted by the Council‟s Park Section that the conifers were now of such a size that in the relatively near future, regardless of the reported anti-social behaviour occurring, remedial work would be required with a view to their removal. The removal of the conifers and planting of more native broad leaf trees would also help the local biodiversity of the area. The estimated cost of this work was £1,800.

It had been noted that the area was not presently covered by the Council‟s bye-laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in public places. Although there were no immediate plans to update these bye-laws due to the significant amount of work involved, it was the intention to add this area to a list of sites which should be included in any subsequent bye-law review.

RECOMMENDED, in view of the above, that the Council does not proceed with the suggested fencing due to the cost involved and the limited impact that it would have in addressing the anti-social behaviour occurring in the locality. It is however further recommended that the conifers on site be removed and replaced with native species and that the general vegetation in the site is cut back with a view to opening it up to make monitoring of the area easier and which will also discourage people congregating.

At this stage in the meeting the Chairman highlighted that the Notice of Motion referred to in the report had not yet been considered by the Committee, adding it was further down the agenda for discussion.

Councillor Roberts confirmed that he was happy to withdraw his Notice of Motion as he was content that all his concerns had been addressed in the report.

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

29

EC.7.10.15

17. APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 1 October 2015 from the Director of Environment stating that an application had been received for the grant of an indoor entertainment licence from Mr Sam McKee, 22 Lisnabreen Crescent, Bangor, Co Down for the following premises:-

The Gillespie Arms, 15 The Square, Comber

The application was to provide:-

 music, singing and dancing or entertainment of a like kind, and  any public contest, match, exhibition or display of billiards, pool, snooker or similar game.

During the following days and hours:-

Monday to Sunday during the permitted hours within which intoxicating liquor may be sold or consumed on these premises under the Licensing (NI) Order 1996.

RECOMMENDED that the Council agrees to grant the licence subject to the following.

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

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

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

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

18. CONFERENCES, INVITATIONS, ETC.

18.1. APSE NI Event – Performance Improvement Forum – Environmental Services

APSE NI Event – 16 October 2015 - Performance Improvement Forum – Environmental Services – The Steeple Suite, Antrim Civic Centre.

Alderman Henry commented that Alderman Carson was a member of APSE and may be attending the event. He therefore wished to note an expression of interest in attending this event on behalf of Alderman Carson.

At this stage in the meeting the Chairman took the opportunity to inform Members that he had seen Alderman Carson earlier that day, as he was leaving the Royal Victoria Hospital following a procedure. He reported that Alderman Carson was

30

EC.7.10.15 doing well and had been released to recuperate at home.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Martin, seconded by Councillor Roberts, that the event be noted.

19. NOTICE OF MOTION

19.1. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Roberts

“That Council notes the high number of complaints of anti-social behaviour in Windsor Gardens / Railwayview Street area of Bangor due to the congregation of groups of young people at the wooded area at the bottom of these two streets and asks that a report be brought back to assess the cost and effectiveness of:

1. clearing the dense conifers and replacing with native broad leave trees to improve visibility whilst also enhancing biodiversity, and 2. fencing the area off to prevent groups from congregating in the area."

AGREED, that the Notice of Motion be withdrawn as the matter had already been addressed at Item 16.

20. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

20.1. Lower Linear Park, Bangor

Councillor Martin reported that Lower Linear Park in Bangor, which was Council- owned land, and areas of Ashbury, Bangor had become problematic in terms of anti- social behaviour. He had recently met with local residents who had recounted to him the problems of criminal damage, threats made to individuals, paramilitary threats, nightly abuse and underage sexual practices. He advised that the gates situated at Upper Linear Park had already been locked for some time due to similar problems.

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

He concluded that a multi-agency response would be the optimal way to tackle the above serious concerns.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Martin, seconded by Councillor Roberts, that an urgent report be brought to the Committee looking at the feasibility and cost of installing gates on Lower Linear Park and that Officers convene, at the first opportunity, a meeting with Council Officers, the PSNI, Education Authority, Lambert Smith Hampton, FASA and the YMCA to discuss a strategy to deal with the on-going anti-social behaviour and criminal damage occurring in Lower Linear Park, Bangor.

31

EC.7.10.15

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Edmund, seconded by Councillor Armstrong, that the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the undernoted item of business.

20.2. Review of Arc21 Waste Management Plan

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

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

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 9.40pm.

32

ITEM 6.3

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Corporate Services Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 7.00 pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Alderman Carson

Aldermen: Alderman Graham (Mayor) (7.04 pm) Alderman Chambers (7.09 pm) Alderman Gibson Alderman Keery

Councillors: Brooks (7.01 pm) Gilmour Kennedy (7.24 pm) Muir McIlveen Smart Smith

Officers: Director of Organisational Development and Administration, Head of Administration, Head of Finance, Head of Performance and Projects, Head of Human Resources, Compliance Manager and Democratic Services Officer

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillors Barry and Anderson.

The Chairman (Alderman Carson) opened the meeting by informing those present that he had fulfilled his obligation to Councillor Smith by wearing a pink shirt and tie to support Breast Cancer Awareness month and he hoped that Councillors and staff alike would support him by making donations to the relevant charities in that field. He was pleased to note that Breast Cancer had now become one of the most curable cancers.

The Chairman advised that the Director of Finance and Performance was still unwell and he asked the Director of Organisational Development and Administration to pass on Members’ good wishes for a speedy recovery. He also took the opportunity to thank Members who had phoned and texted him when he had been in hospital the previous week.

NOTED.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman (Alderman Carson) asked for any declarations of interest and none were disclosed. CSC.13.10.15

NOTED.

3. 2014/15 ANNUAL PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS AND TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT – ARDS BOROUGH COUNCIL

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 26 August 2015 from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that the Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011, and the supporting Prudential and Treasury Codes required the Council to approve financial policies and strategies for its capital financing and treasury management activities. As a minimum, the Council was required to receive and approve an annual strategy at the commencement of the year, a mid-year review and an annual report after the close of each financial year.

This report met the latter requirement of an annual report for the legacy Ards Borough Council for the 2014/15 financial year. The purpose of the report was to highlight performance against the Prudential Indicators which were set for capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activities set out in the Council’s annual strategy which was approved in February 2014.

Note that for Ards and North Down Borough Council, the annual strategy for 2015/16 was approved in February 2015. Members would receive the mid-year review for this strategy in the Autumn of 2015 and the annual report in the summer of 2016.

1 Capital Expenditure & Financing

The Act and CIPFAs Prudential Code required the Council to set and monitor a series of Prudential Indicators (PIs) for capital expenditure and financing which ensured that, within a clear framework, the capital investment plans of the Council were affordable, prudent and sustainable.

1.1 Capital Expenditure

The following table summarised the total amount of capital expenditure incurred during 2014/15 compared to the original estimate approved by Council.

Estimate Actual Variance

Indicator £’000 £’000 £’000 Capital Expenditure 2014/15 13,949 11,075 2,874 Capital Expenditure 2013/14 2,300 1,800 500

The variance in actual expenditure for the 2014/15 year of almost £2.9m was primarily due to slippages or time delays on the following schemes:

 Queens Hall Library Project - £0.6m re-profiled to 2015/16;  3G pitch - £0.5m re-profiled to 2015/16;  Movilla Cemetery Extension - £0.4m re-profiled to 2015/16;

2

CSC.13.10.15

 New Leisure Centre – actual spend £0.4m less than planned. Re-profiled to 2015/16;  Exploris Refurbishment - £0.9m – DoE funding.

1.2 Capital Resourcing

The table below summarised how the capital expenditure for 2014/15 of £11.075m had been financed from sources other than borrowings:

2014/15 Actual Capital Expenditure 2014/15 financed by: £m Capital Receipts Reserve 3,890 Capital Fund/Earmarked Reserves 0,808 Repairs & Renewals Fund 0 Capital Grants 5,819 Revenue Contributions 0 Balance to be met from borrowings 558

The balance of £558k was required to be met from borrowings and this would form part of the Capital Financing Requirement (see 1.3 below) and be financed through the annual charge for minimum revenue provision (MRP).

1.3 Capital Financing Requirement

The Council’s underlying need to borrow to finance capital expenditure was termed the Capital Financing Requirement (CFR). The CFR is simply the total historic outstanding capital expenditure which had not yet been paid for from either revenue or capital resources and was essentially a measure of the Council’s underlying need to borrow.

In order to ensure that borrowing levels were prudent over the medium term, the Council’s gross external borrowing must only be for a capital purpose. Gross borrowing should not therefore, except in the short term, exceed the CFR. The position on the CFR and Gross Borrowing during 2014/15 compared to the previous year and the estimates for 2014/15 was as follows:

Actual Estimate Actual

31/03/14 31/03/15 31/03/15 Indicator £’000 £’000 £’000 Capital Financing Requirement 11,892 11,500 12,014 Gross Borrowing* 11,810 11,374 11,374 Under / (Over) Borrowing 82 126 640

3

CSC.13.10.15

*The Council’s gross borrowing includes NIHE loans of approximately £1.0m. These need to be netted off to show the true Council borrowing position.

1.4 External Borrowings

During 2014/15, there was no requirement to take out any new loans.

Loan principal repayments of £477,153 were made on existing loans during the year. That resulted in a level of external borrowings at 31 March 2015 of £12,350,439.

The maximum gross borrowings at any point during the year were £12,827,592. That meant that Council maintained its borrowings within its authorised limit during the year, as could be seen from the table below.

2014/15 Indicator £’000 Authorised Borrowing Limit 17,400 Operational Boundary for External Borrowing 12,400 Maximum Gross Borrowing 12,828

The authorised limit - Section 13 of the Local Government Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 required the Council to set an authorised limit for borrowing. The Council did not have the power to borrow above this level.

The operational boundary – the operational boundary was the expected borrowing position of the Council during the year. Periods where the actual position was either below or over the boundary was acceptable subject to the authorised limit not being breached.

Another indicator in relation to capital expenditure was the ‘Ratio of Financing Costs to Net Revenue Stream’. That indicator measured the proportion of the revenue budget that was allocated to finance capital expenditure and the table below shows that that was lower than expected for the year.

2014/15

Indicator % Financing costs as a % of net revenue - Actual 5.5% Financing costs as a % of net revenue – Estimate 6.1%

Debt Rescheduling and Average Interest Rates

No debt rescheduling was carried out during the year.

4

CSC.13.10.15

The average interest rate for the Council’s total debt portfolio at 31 March 2015 was 5.51%.

Average Interest Average Interest

Rates 2013/14 Rates 2014/15 Council’s total debt portfolio 5.50% 5.51% Loans taken out in year n/a n/a

2 Treasury Management

The Council’s Treasury Management Policy and Strategy adopted the key principles of CIPFAs Code of Practice and had been set in accordance with the guidance issued by the Department of The Environment.

2.1 Investment Strategy 2014-15

The objectives of the Council’s investment strategy were safeguarding the repayment of the principal and interest of its investments on time, with the investment return being a secondary objective. The investment climate for 2014/15 was one of overriding risk consideration, particularly that of counterparty risk. As a result, implementation of the operational investment strategy during the year required short-term investments to be placed with the Council’s approved high quality counterparties.

For the year to 31 March 2015, Council earned interest of £127,837.

The Council’s limit for total principal sums invested for periods longer than 364 days was £0k. During 2014/15, the Council did not enter into any investments which were for periods longer than 364 days.

The balance of funds held at 31 March 2015 was £10,230,949.

2.2 Other Treasury Management Indicators

Two other Treasury Management indicators were set at the start of the year: - Upper Limits for Fixed and Variable Rate Borrowing - Limits on the Maturity of Fixed Rate Borrowing

Officers could confirm that the limits set for these indicators were not breached.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the 2014/15 Annual Report on the Prudential Indicators for capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activities for Ards Borough Council.

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

5

CSC.13.10.15

4. 2014/15 ANNUAL PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS AND TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT – NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 August 2015 from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that the Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011, and the supporting Prudential and Treasury Codes required the Council to approve financial policies and strategies for its capital financing and treasury management activities. As a minimum, the Council was required to receive and approve an annual strategy at the commencement of the year, a mid-year review and an annual report after the close of each financial year.

This report met the latter requirement of an annual report for the legacy North Down Borough Council for the 2014/15 financial year. The purpose of this report was to highlight performance against the Prudential Indicators which were set for capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activities set out in the Council’s annual strategy, which was approved in February 2014.

Note that for Ards and North Down Borough Council, the annual strategy for 2015/16 was approved in February 2015. Members would receive the mid-year review for this strategy in the Autumn of 2015 and the annual report in the summer of 2016.

Report

1 Capital Expenditure & Financing

The Act and CIPFA’s Prudential Code required the Council to set and monitor a series of Prudential Indicators (PIs) for capital expenditure and financing which ensured that, within a clear framework, the capital investment plans of the Council were affordable, prudent and sustainable.

1.2 Capital Expenditure

The following table summarised the total amount of capital expenditure incurred during 2014/15 compared to the original estimate approved by Council.

Estimate Actual Variance

Indicator £’000 £’000 £’000 Capital Expenditure 2014/15 12,350 9,011 3,339 Capital Expenditure 2013/14 7,502 1,715 (5,787)

The variance in actual expenditure for the 2014/15 year of almost £3.3m was primarily due to time slippages on the following two schemes:

 Holywood Sports Strategy – £2m;  Redburn Square Public Realm Scheme - £1.1m;

6

CSC.13.10.15

Work had not yet commenced on any of these schemes and the budgets had therefore been re-profiled to occur in later years.

Variances on other projects also arose as follows:

 Hamilton Road Community Facility – this scheme commenced later in the year than expected, requiring £1.3m to be re-profiled to 2015/16;  Bangor & Holywood Public Realm Schemes – spend in year was higher than expected on that scheme by £900k; that would result in a lower than expected spend in 2015/16;  Vehicles and Equipment Purchases – approx. £250k of the approved budget was not utilised, with approximately £100k being re-profiled to the following year due to late delivery of some orders after year end;  Coastal Path – that scheme saw a reduction in total net spend of approx. £175k due to the receipt of unanticipated grant income.

1.2 Capital Resourcing

The table below summarised how the capital expenditure for 2014/15 of £9.011m had been financed:

2014/15 £ Capital Expenditure 2014/15 9,011,374 Financed by: Capital Receipts Reserve (269,718) Capital Fund/Earmarked Reserves (1,477,267) Repairs & Renewals Fund (99,804) Grants (4,837,172) Revenue Contributions - Balance to be met from borrowings 2,327,413

The balance of £2.3m was required to be met from borrowings and that would form part of the Capital Financing Requirement (see 1.3 below) and be financed through the annual charge for minimum revenue provision (MRP).

1.3 Capital Financing Requirement

The Council’s underlying need to borrow to finance capital expenditure was termed the Capital Financing Requirement (CFR). The CFR was simply the total historic outstanding capital expenditure which had not yet been paid for from either revenue or capital resources and was essentially a measure of the Council’s underlying need to borrow.

7

CSC.13.10.15

In order to ensure that borrowing levels were prudent over the medium term, the Council’s gross external borrowing should not, except in the short term, exceed the total of the CFR in the preceding year plus the estimates of any additional CFR for the current and following two financial years. The position on the CFR and Gross Borrowing during 2014/15 compared to the previous year and the estimates for 2014/15 were as follows:

Actual Estimate Actual

31/03/14 31/03/15 31/03/15 Indicator £’000 £’000 £’000 Capital Financing Requirement 46,196 49,319 45,756 Gross Borrowing 47,664 49,849 45,717 Under/(Over) Borrowing (1,468) (530) 39

The actual CFR for 2014/15 showed that the Council had moved from an over borrowing position to an under borrowing position. That had been achieved through both a planned borrowing strategy and the ability to provide for additional minimum revenue provision in the 2014/15 financial year.

1.4 External Borrowings

During 2014/15, there was no requirement to take out any new loans.

Loan principal repayments of £1,946,897 were made on existing loans during the year. That resulted in a level of external borrowings at 31 March 2015 of £45,716,766.

The maximum gross borrowings at any point during the year was £47,663,664. That meant that Council maintained its borrowings within both its authorised limit and operational boundary during the year, as could be seen from the table below.

2014/15 Indicator £’000 Authorised Borrowing Limit 51,849 Operational Boundary for External Borrowing 49,849 Maximum Gross Borrowing 47,664

The authorised limit – Section 13 of the Local Government Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires the Council to set an authorised limit for borrowing. The Council did not have the power to borrow above this level.

The operational boundary – the operational boundary was the expected borrowing position of the Council during the year. Periods where the actual position was either below or over the boundary was acceptable subject to the authorised limit not being breached.

8

CSC.13.10.15

Another indicator in relation to capital expenditure was the ‘Ratio of Financing Costs to Net Revenue Stream’. That indicator measured the proportion of the revenue budget that was allocated to finance capital expenditure and the table below showed that the actual for the year was similar to the estimate.

201415

Indicator % Financing costs as a % of net revenue – Actual 20.9% Financing costs as a % of net revenue – Estimate 20.4%

Debt Rescheduling and Average Interest Rates

Officers were not able to avail of any debt rescheduling opportunities during the year as the combination of relatively low interest rates and the small differential of 1% between DFP new borrowing rates and premature repayment rates did not create any viable options.

The average interest rate for the Council’s total debt portfolio at 31 March 2015 was 6.34%. That was down slightly from the previous year due to the full repayment on maturity of loans, which were held at a higher rate of interest than the portfolio average, during the year.

Average Interest Average Interest

Rates 2013/14 Rates 2014/15 Council’s total debt portfolio 6.40% 6.34% Loans taken out in year n/a n/a

2 Treasury Management

The Councils Treasury Management Policy and Strategy adopted the key principles of CIPFAs Code of Practice and had been set in accordance with the guidance issued by the Department of the Environment.

2.1 Investment Strategy 2014-15

The objectives of the Council’s investment strategy were safeguarding the repayment of the principal and interest of its investments on time, with the investment return being a secondary objective. The investment climate for 2014/15 was one of overriding risk consideration, particularly that of counterparty risk. As a result, implementation of the operational investment strategy during the year required short-term investments to be placed with the Council’s approved high quality counterparties.

For the year to 31 March 2015, Council earned interest of £56,635, having entered into a total of 77 investment deals with approved financial institutions, which were summarised below.

9

CSC.13.10.15

Average Average No. of Average Interest Deposit Interest deals Term Earned Size Rate Ulster Bank Ltd 2 £3.18m 203 days 1.11% £ 41,201 Santander UK 68 £2.09m 5 days 0.40% £ 8,306 PLC Bank of 7 £2.17m 33 days 0.47% £ 6,885 Scotland Barclays - - - - £ 243 Savings Account All 77 £2.55m 13 days 0.71% £ 56,635

The Council’s limit for total principal sums invested for periods longer than 364 days was £500k. During 2014/15, the Council did not enter into any investments which were for periods longer than 364 days.

The balance of funds held in investment accounts at 31 March 2015 was £4,000,000.

2.2 Other Treasury Management Indicators

Two other Treasury Management indicators were set at the start of the year: - Upper Limits for Fixed and Variable Rate Borrowing - Limits on the Maturity of Fixed Rate Borrowing

Officers could confirm that the limits set for these indicators were not breached.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the 2014/15 Annual Report on the Prudential Indicators for capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activities for North Down Borough Council.

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

5. CODE OF AUDIT PRACTICE 2015/16 CONSULTATION RESPONSE (Appendix I)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 2 October 2015 from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that Article 5 of the above Order required the Local Government Auditor (within the NI Audit Office) to prepare a draft Code of Audit Practice for approval by the NI Assembly. That revised Code would replace the one that came into effect on 1st April 2011 and was currently out for consultation and was available at http://www.niauditoffice.gov.uk/index/publications/consultation_- _code_of_audit_practice.htm. Responses were to be submitted by 30th November 2015.

In preparing the response to this consultation, officers had relied on and would support the APSE briefing on this subject, which had been furnished to members.

10

CSC.13.10.15

RECOMMENDED that the Council adopts the report.

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

6. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT POLICY

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 6 October 2015 from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that the Local Government Act (NI) 2014 put in place a new framework to support the continuous improvement in the delivery of Council services in the context of strategic objectives and issues that were important to those who received the services. Council was required to gather information to assess improvement in its services and to issue a report annually on performance against indicators either set themselves or that had been set by Department.

The aim of the Policy and Handbook was to set out the Council’s approach to Performance Management to:

 Ensure compliance with the new legal, audit and operational context;  Provide focus on direction, based on provision of quality services and achievement of community outcomes; and measure the right things;  Facilitate alignment between Community, Corporate, Service and Individual Plans and activities and the needs of stakeholders;  Encourage personal responsibility;  Motivate and develop staff;  Promote performance improvement, encourage innovation and share good practice;  Encourage transparency of performance outcomes, communicate success;  Recognise success; and  Address underperformance.

The policy had been Section 75 screened and no adverse impact had been identified

RECOMMENDED that the Performance Management Policy be approved.

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

7. LIGHTING UP OF BUILDINGS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 30 September 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that at the Committee’s meeting in September 2015, Members made reference to the Council’s ability to light up its buildings for special purposes. The report alluded to practical and policy related issues and recommended a method for processing requests to light up the Council’s civic buildings, bearing in mind that the Council may receive many and varied requests to light up a building/buildings from a wide range of organisations and interest groups and to mark diverse events.

11

CSC.13.10.15

Background The Council from time to time received requests to light up its civic buildings to mark significant dates or designated days, raise awareness of a charity, champion a cause or celebrate success. The legacy Ards Borough Council and North Down Borough Council had responded positively to requests from organisations such as Autism NI to light up a building.

The lighting up of civic buildings could have a “feel good” effect on citizens and be attractive to residents and visitors. It was noted however, that there were over 140 United Nations recognised days alone for special causes, such as World Holocaust Day and World Aids Day.

Capacity to Light Up Council Buildings The Council currently had the capacity to illuminate the Town Hall Arts Centre, Newtownards, any single colour and in specific pantones. A high quality LED uplighting system was installed as part of the Public Realm development work at Conway Square which was completed earlier this year.

It was not possible to light the building up in multiple colours.

The Town Hall, The Castle, Bangor, was externally illuminated by recently installed induction lighting. In the past two years, coloured gels had been applied to the uplighter housing to colour the building blue, pink and purple, however, it was not possible to achieve specific pantones in this manner. Some colours were more effective than others – when lit up blue, the building looked attractive close up but was difficult to see from a distance. The use of gels could have the effect of dimming the light by up to a half of its output capacity, depending on the colour projected. The sandstone could also drain the fervency of a projected colour.

Some considerations:- 1. Some organisations who submitted requests for buildings to be lit up for awareness raising or other purposes, required them to be lit to a colour specification synonymous with their branding which could only be achieved through the use of LED lighting. 2. Light coloured buildings could be more effectively illuminated than dark stone buildings where the colour intensity was lost. 3. The cost of installing LED lighting was around £10,000 when it was done as part of the Public Realm scheme. It would cost considerably more to install LED lighting in buildings which were not part of a development scheme as excavation was necessary.

Suggested Criteria/Procedures for Processing Requests to Light Up Council Buildings In an effort to ensure that all requests were dealt with in a consistent and fair manner, the following lighting up procedures and criteria were suggested:-

1. The Council would light up the Town Hall Arts Centre, Newtownards and the Town Hall (The Castle), Bangor, in a particular colour, where practicably possible, in response to requests from organisations, charitable or other groups where the requests were deemed eligible (see point No 2).

12

CSC.13.10.15

2. Requests for lighting up buildings for the following purposes would be deemed as eligible:- a. To raise awareness of charities nominated by the Mayor b. To mark events directly organised or financially supported by the Council c. To mark events not directly organised by the Council but which may be held wholly or in part in the Borough and be regarded as of significant benefit to the Borough from a tourism or promotional perspective (e.g. Giro d’Italia) d. Charitable, community or other non-profit making organisations based in or with a significant connection to the Borough and which are celebrating a significant anniversary or occasion. e. Recognised sporting teams or organisations with a specific connection to the Borough which have achieved a significant accolade (e.g. winning a national or international competition) 3. Requests to light up buildings on UN recognised days would, in the first instance, be brought to the Council for approval and would be marked annually thereafter and reviewed after a ten year period or until the Council decided to cease such practice. 4. Any requests which were not covered by the criteria outlined above, or were considered to be of a political or potentially controversial nature, would require the consideration and approval of the Council. 5. Requests must be received at least six weeks in advance of the date on which the buildings were to be illuminated, to allow for suitable technical preparations to be made and to give time for Council consideration of potentially controversial requests. 6. All requests would be screened for Section 75 purposes.

RECOMMENDED that:-

The Council adopts the above procedures and criteria for handling requests to light up the Town Hall Arts Centre, Newtownards, and the Town Hall (The Castle), Bangor.

The procedures and criteria be published on the Council’s website.

1. The Council creates and keeps under review an approved list of days that the Council would mark.

Councillor Smith queried if other buildings in the Borough could also be considered for lighting such as The Moat in Donaghadee.

In response the Head of Administration noted that while the proposed policy included two of the Council’s buildings it could be broadened to include more, however few buildings were currently capable of being “lit up” and to equip them to do so would incur additional costs. She added that it was more cost effective to include lighting schemes in the new capital schemes involving excavation works.

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

13

CSC.13.10.15

(Alderman Chambers entered the meeting at this stage – 7.09 pm)

8. NAMING OF OFFICERS ATTENDING COMMITTEES AND COUNCIL

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 29 September 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stated that at the August 2015 Council meeting the Planning Committee minutes dated 4 August 2015 had been ratified.

Alderman Chambers had referred to the list of officers in attendance at the meeting and had suggested that officers’ names be listed rather than their titles, particularly those of the Democratic Services Officers. He had suggested that the matter was sent to the appropriate committee for consideration.

Alderman Chambers had proposed, seconded by Councillor Boyle, that the matter of officers names being listed in minutes be referred to the Corporate Committee for consideration.

Report

It was proposed that, in the interests of transparency and good governance, the names and job titles of all officers attending committees and Council should be listed at the beginning of the minutes. This would include the names of the Democratic Services Officers. In the body of the minutes there would be reference to job titles only.

RECOMMENDED that the Council accepts the proposed amendment to the recording of names and job titles in the minutes.

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

9. SECTION 75 AND SOCIAL MEDIA AWARENESS TRAINING – NOVEMBER 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 1 October 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration reminding Members that the Council’s Equality Scheme and Action Plan contained a commitment to train all Elected Members on the Council’s legislative duty to promote equality of opportunity across all Section 75 categories.

Section 75 awareness training had been provisionally arranged for Elected Members on Wednesday 18 November 2015 at 4pm in the Craig Room, Town Hall, Bangor.

The training would cover what the legislation meant for both the Council and Elected Members, as well as how the legislation protected individuals from adverse impact. The training would be interactive and would provide practical examples of what

14

CSC.13.10.15 equity of service provision and promoting good relations should look like for the Council.

The second part of the training would be an interactive session on the use of mobile devices and social media. It would address the benefits and limitations of social media and would help Members become more media aware, including protecting their online reputation. The session would also give some insight to the issues younger people face in their use of social media.

Both elements of the training would be delivered by experts in their field, and would be of interest and benefit to all Elected Members.

RECOMMENDED that Council approves the provision of the above training.

The Director of Organisational Development and Administration stated that this training had previously been organised but very few members had been able to attend and it was hoped the new date would be more convenient.

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

10. PARTNERSHIP PANEL MINUTES DATED 28 APRIL 2015 (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

Members were asked to note the minutes of the Partnership Panel.

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

11. SYRIAN VULNERABLE PERSONS RELOCATION PROGRAMME (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 5 October 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that a letter had been received from Ian Snowden, Deputy Secretary DSD, advising Council of the planning arrangements that were being put in place and how local government would be involved in the process of bringing Syrian refugees to Northern Ireland.

A Strategic Planning Group and Operational Planning Group had been set up and they were at the very early stages of planning. Local government was represented on the Operational Group.

Councils would be kept fully informed of the work of the Groups and the role the Councils would be asked to play in the period following resettlement of refugees.

RECOMMENDED that the information detailed in the DSD letter be noted.

15

CSC.13.10.15

Councillor Smith referred to the letter from the Department and asked what preparations were expected from each Council in anticipation of refugees arriving in Northern Ireland.

The Director of Organisational Development and Administration advised that the purpose of the letter from DSD was to make Members aware that some scoping work would be undertaken regionally before further information was brought back to Councils, and that it was anticipated that the Council would be involved in the integration of any refugees placed within the Borough in due course.

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

12. RESOLUTION

12.1 RESOLUTION – REFUGEE CRISIS (Appendix IV)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Letter dated 16 September 2015 from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council advising of its actions and stressing that it was keen to work with others Councils to ensure a co-ordinated response to this humanitarian crisis.

The Council agreed the following motion:-

“This Council recognises the severity of the current refugee crisis, the legitimate right of the persecuted to sanctuary under international law and understands the moral obligation to help, placed on those nations able to do so. The Council therefore calls upon the UK Government to show leadership and devote resources to help those in need and pledges that Newry, Mourne and Down District Council will offer sanctuary to at least 100 refugees, or the number allocated by the British Government, and that the appropriate lines of communication shall be opened by the Council to enable this”.

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

13. DRD CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

13.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION BY THE DRD ON THE ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT STRATEGY 2025 (Appendix V)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Consultation Document from DRD on the Accessible Transport Strategy 2025.

RECOMMENDED that the consultation document be noted.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Muir, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the consultation document be noted.

16

CSC.13.10.15

13.2 STRANGFORD FERRY TIMETABLE – PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Appendix VI)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Letter dated 30 September 2015 from TransportNI stating that following requests from the public and public representatives, Transport NI proposed to commence a consultation process on a proposed amendment to the Strangford Ferry timetable. The consultation paper was attached.

The amended timetable would include an additional weekday morning sailing from Portaferry at 7.20. The 22.30 sailing from Strangford and the 22.45 sailing from Portaferry (Sunday to Friday) would be dropped during the winter months (1 October to 31 March). There were no proposals to change the overall number of sailing throughout the year.

RECOMMENDED that the consultation paper be noted.

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

14.1 NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MUIR

Councillor Muir proposed, seconded by Alderman Keery that this Council requests that officers explore the possibility of a permanent recognition of Golf Champion Rory McIlroy in Holywood Town Centre in liaison with his management company.

Councillor Muir began by saying that everyone in Holywood and indeed throughout Northern Ireland was very proud of the golfing achievements of Rory McIlroy. Councillor Muir had been asked by constituents on many occasions if the Council was doing anything to recognise its local golfing hero. His Notice of Motion was therefore an opportunity to explore the issue and bring back a further report to the Council.

The Mayor (Alderman Graham) confirmed that this had previously been discussed in North Down Borough Council and consultation had taken place with Rory’s Management Company. No progress on that had been made in the past and he urged caution against the Council making a nuisance of itself. Rory’s reputation was sound in the Borough and he queried what was intended and what Members would be supporting through the Motion.

Alderman Chambers added that in the past there had been signage planned for Holywood indicating that it was the golfer’s home town and there had been issues in agreeing the wording with the Management Company in respect of that. The Member was not against the Motion however he did feel that difficulties might arise from it.

Councillor Gilmour said that the recognition could simply take the form of road signage in to the town which stated for example, “Holywood, Home to Rory McIlroy.” The Council would need to establish what was possible through Rory’s Management Company before it proceeded further.

17

CSC.13.10.15

Alderman Gibson noted that while Rory was obviously an international success story there were others in the Borough who were also world champions and he named a local flute band. In recognising Rory, the Council may be setting a precedent for doing the same for other world champions.

In summing up Councillor Muir recognised that the wording of his Notice of Motion was rather vague. He said that whatever could be achieved would benefit tourism and the local economy. The road signage to the town had to be updated anyway and this would be the time to give consideration to it. He stressed he obviously did not expect officers to do anything without speaking to the Management Company first.

The Director of Organisational Development and Administration advised Members that the Chief Executive intended to contact a Member of the Management Company to discuss the issue.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Muir, seconded by Alderman Keery that the Council requests Officers to explore the possibility of a permanent recognition of Golf Champion Rory McIlroy in Holywood Town Centre in liaison with his Management Company.

14.2 NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MARTIN

The Chairman (Alderman Carson) explained that a Notice of Motion, which had originally been scheduled for discussion at the Corporate Committee, had been withdrawn and referred to the Community and Wellbeing Committee.

NOTED.

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

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

(Councillor Kennedy entered the meeting at 7.24 pm)

15. REPORT OF CORPORATE PROJECT PORTFOLIO BOARD (Appendix VII)

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

(Councillor Smith left at 7.34 pm)

16. HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES (Appendix VIII)

18

CSC.13.10.15

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the Council or a government department and employees of, or office holders under, the Council.

(Councillor Smith entered the meeting at 7.37 pm)

17. AWARD OF TENDER FOR PROVISION OF OFFICE FURNITURE

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

18. EXTENSION TO COUNCIL SICK PAY

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

19. LICENCE FOR TEMPORARY CABIN AT COUNCIL LAND, BOWTOWN ROAD, NEWTOWNARDS (Appendix IX)

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

20. FREEHOLD TO FORMER ENGINEERING WORKS, DAIRY HALL AND LAND AT PORTAFERRY ROAD, NEWTOWNARDS (Appendix X)

***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 TO PURCHASE LAND AT DERMOTT GARDENS, COMBER (Appendix XI)

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

19

CSC.13.10.15

22. REQUEST FROM B J MARINE TO SUB-LET

***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, on the proposal of Councillor Smart, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that the public and press be readmitted for the undernoted items of business.

23. TERMINATION OF MEETING

Councillor Smith reminded Members that donations to Action Cancer could be made through him.

The meeting terminated at 7.54 pm.

20

ITEM 6.4

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Wednesday, 14 October 2015 at 7.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Councillor Armstrong

Aldermen: Chambers (7.10pm) Irvine

Councillors: Adair Kennedy Allen Martin Boyle Menagh Brooks Roberts Cooper Smart Dunne Thompson Edmund Wilson

In Attendance: Councillor Cummings

Officers: Director of Community and Wellbeing, Head of Community and Culture, Head of Leisure and Amenities, Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection and Democratic Services Officer

Others: Karen Douglas (Service Manager, The Rowan, NI Sexual Assault Referral Centre)

1. APOLOGIES

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) welcomed everyone and recorded apologies for inability to attend from Councillor Anderson, and on behalf of the Committee, expressed best wishes for the speedy recovery of his baby son.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Alderman Irvine declared an interest in Item 16 – Leisure Facilities Management Discussions Update, and Item 17 – Northern Community Leisure Trust Q1 (Quarter 1) Report being Council’s representative on the Board of Trustees of that Trust (NCLT).

3. DEPUTATION

3.1 The Rowan (NI Sexual Assault Referral Centre)

CIRCULATED:- Copy Powerpoint Presentation (Appendix 1) and Information Pack Re: The Rowan. CW.14.10.15

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) welcomed and introduced Karen Douglas (Service Manager) from The Rowan to the meeting. Ms Douglas provided a detailed overview of the powerpoint presentation comprising of slides and photographs which covered:-

 What is a Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC)  The Strategic Driver Regional Strategy  Sexual Violence and Abuse Defined  Statistics (DHSSPS/DoJ (2008) Tackling Sexual Violence and Abuse: a Regional Strategy 2008-2013)  Disclosure  Barriers to Disclosure  Guiding Principles  The Rowan Team  The Rowan Services  Referral Process  Outcomes  The Rowan … the reality …  Number and Source of Referrals Received  Legal Considerations Re: Self-Referrers  Public and Personal Involvement (PPI)  The Rowan Contact and Website details

(Alderman Chambers entered the meeting at this stage – 7:10pm.)

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) and Members thanked Ms Douglas for the interesting and informative presentation. In providing feedback, a number of Members acknowledged that they were unaware of such a facility as The Rowan. Ms Douglas welcomed any comments and suggestions from Members of the Committee for the benefit of everyone.

In response to a query from Councillor Adair, Ms Douglas outlined The Rowan’s Communication Strategy which included plans to upgrade social media and recent mail shots to GPs, Citizen Advice Bureaus, Councils and MLAs. Councillor Adair suggested that it would be useful to have the information available locally in Doctors Surgeries, community buildings and Citizen Advice Bureaus in order for victims in Ards and North Down to be made aware of this important resource and support available.

In response to a query from Councillor Brooks, Ms Douglas provided average figures confirming that 13% of male rapes had been reported to The Rowan, and the PSNI would hold exact statistics in relation to the percentage of reported incidents of rape across Northern Ireland.

In response to queries from Councillor Roberts, Ms Douglas advised that the team at The Rowan dealt with ensuring victims immediate physical needs, followed up by counselling referrals. Ms Douglas explained that people with learning disabilities would receive sociology therapy support through their social health provider and The Rowan team would assess victims with milder learning disabilities and if necessary

2

CW.14.10.15 access outside expertise, which was already available to avoid duplication of service provision.

Councillor Menagh welcomed the excellent service and he concurred with Councillor Adair that information should be available in Doctors Surgeries, MLA Offices, etc across the Borough of Ards and North Down.

In response to a query from Alderman Irvine, Ms Douglas advised that recent ongoing media and satellite coverage had assisted other victims in coming forward to report incidents and dispel myths such as self-blame/hate faced by sexual victims. In regards to sexual violence in the community, Ms Douglas suggested that the Ards and North Down Community Safety Partnership could assist in promoting the service provided at The Rowan.

Councillor Boyle advised that he was aware of the service provided by The Rowan and he sought feedback on the future of funding provision. Ms Douglas responded that the total funding requirement was £900,000 per annum and 50% was provided by the PSNI who were fully committed to the work of The Rowan, whilst the other 50% funding was provided by the DHSSP. Ms Douglas indicated her confidence in continued funding provision as Minister Ford and Minister Hamilton had not to date discussed any financial cutbacks that could affect The Rowan, which had actually achieved savings by streamlining the provision of services available.

In response to queries from Councillor Cooper, Ms Douglas confirmed that no other Organisation provided a similar service to The Rowan and she welcomed the opportunity to go out into the local community in order to make local people aware of the support available. Members were welcome to make such arrangements with Ms Douglas whose contact details were available in the Information Pack provided. Councillor Wilson welcomed that The Rowan provided this type of service rather than the ordeal of victims having to report sexual crime to the Police.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) expressed appreciation to Ms Douglas and co-workers on the work conducted by The Rowan that had impressed Members.

Ms Douglas withdrew from the meeting at this stage – 7:25pm.

NOTED.

4. NIGHT TIME NOISE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 30 September 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that on 9 September 2015 the Community and Wellbeing Committee resolved the following Notice of Motion:-

“That this Council recognises that excessive noise can constitute a real nuisance to residents of this Borough, further notes that latest statistics show that noise complaints increased in both Ards and North Down legacy Councils, tasks officers to explore all powers available under the Noise Act 1996 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (NI) 2011 to help tackle nuisance noise within the Borough”.

3

CW.14.10.15

The contents of this report were in response to that motion.

Noise Complaints in the Borough The breakdown of the noise complaints reported to the Council in 2014/15 was as follows, (combination of both legacy areas): Total Number of Number of Category of Source Received Notices Prosecutions Served (under section (under 65 CNEA) section 58 and 63/65 CNEA) Industry/Manufacturing 10 Industrial Agricultural/Workshops 8 Wind Turbine 0 Wind(individual Farm turbine) 0 Entertainment 14 SportsPremises & Leisure 8 Commercial Filling Stations / Car 2 & HotWash Food Bars / 0 Leisure OtherRestaurants Shops & Offices 0 Security Alarms 7 1 Other 0 DIY 7 Music / Television / 73 4 Domestic AnimalParties Noise 468 5 2 House Alarms 17 Other neighbour noise 56 1 Construction Construction Sites 35 /Demolition Works Road Vehicles 11 Railways 0 Transport Civil Aircraft 0 Military Aircraft 0 Delivery Vehicles 1 Vehicle Alarms 0 Vehicle horns/revving 1 engines/noisy exhausts Loudspeakers 2 Noise Road works 0 in Street Ice Cream Van 0 StreetChimes Traders 0 Street 0 ChildrenPerformance/Public Playing 0 AntisocialAddress behaviour 2 Other 0 TOTAL 722 11 2

4

CW.14.10.15

The current resource dedicated to noise control was three Officers who carried out noise work in combination with other duties. Two of the Officers worked part-time hours, and the total resources would be in the region of 1.25 Officer full-time equivalent. That provision might reduce as part of this resource may be dedicated to wellbeing duties in the near future although it was adequate for responding to the complaints currently received.

As could be seen from the table above over half of the complaints received by the Council related to animal noise and in the vast majority of cases that was barking dogs (although complaints had also been received in relation to crowing cockerels and braying donkeys). In relation to barking dogs, the dog control service carried out initial investigations of the dog noise and check that the dog was licenced and kept in reasonable conditions. Complaints about barking dogs were then passed to environmental health if a reduction in the problem could not be secured informally by the dog warden service. The proportion passed to Environmental Health was usually around one in ten.

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 Noise Nuisance Noise nuisance offences were breaches of Section 63 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. They were defined as:-

(i) noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;

(j) noise that was prejudicial to health or a nuisance and was emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street;

Noise nuisance was not dependant on an absolute level of noise. It relied on a combination of factors  The level of the noise produced  The duration of the noise event  The time of day at which it occurs  How often it occurs over time

Final decisions on whether noise is a nuisance was a result of readings and the “reasonableness” test.

Investigation of noise nuisance in Ards and North Down Borough Council Both legacy Councils investigated noise nuisance complaints in largely the same way, using guidance developed for use across Northern Ireland and much of the UK. If the source of a noise problem was obvious, for example a noisy/defective fan or compressor on a commercial building running at night, the Officer would approach the premises and try and get the issue resolved quickly.

When noise nuisance was reported our first response to the complainant was usually to ask if they had approached the alleged offender as often that was the quickest way to resolve the issue without degrading neighbour relations. For more intermittent and persistent noise such as parties, DIY or motorcycle scramblers, the Council had to establish the nuisance taking into consideration the four factors mentioned above. That involved sending log sheets to the complainant so that they could record the times, duration and effect of the noise (e.g. could they

5

CW.14.10.15 hear it above their TV). Log sheets were vital as they informed future monitoring and may be produced as proof of nuisance in court.

The person being complained about must be informed at that juncture as investigation without informing them was contrary to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Council could not ignore that legislation. However, often at that point the noise ceases and no further investigation is required as it was a de facto warning.

On the basis of returned log sheets, sound recording and measuring equipment was left at the complainant’s property over a number of days at relevant times (derived from the log sheets) when the nuisance complained of was likely to be at its worst. If that arrangement was not successful on the first occasion then equipment would be left on two subsequent occasions. If a nuisance was established at that point, the Officer usually makes an arrangement to witness the nuisance. Once witnessed a noise abatement notice could be served and if that was breached a case could be laid before the Magistrate.

This process could be protracted. However, noise nuisance was a criminal offence therefore the Council had to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that a nuisance was taking place.

Noise Act 1996 This legislation provided additional powers for Councils to run a night-time response service. Prior to 2012, if Councils wanted to use the Noise Act they had to provide a noise service from 11:00pm to 7:00am on 365 days per year. Very few UK Councils adopted those powers and in Northern Ireland, only Belfast City Council provided a night-time noise complaint service due to a high number of night-time noise complaints, particularly in student accommodation areas.

Belfast’s night-time noise team consists of two managers and six full-time, night- time, noise Officers who worked on a five-week shift cycle. That service required a budget in excess of £500,000 annually. They never attended complaints unless at least in pairs and requested Police assistance in many instances before serving warning notices.

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 which came into force in April 2012 modified the above act to allow Councils to use the powers contained within the Noise Act 1996 without the considerable expense of providing an 11:00pm to 7:00am, 365 day service. It also extended the extent of noise act powers from noise in a dwelling affecting another dwelling to include noise from specified premises (entertainment venues, pubs clubs and restaurants) affecting a dwelling.

Current position Until now the legacy Councils and the new Council had only used nuisance powers to control noise (Clean Neighbourhoods Legislation). The resource to deal with night-time noise was limited. In the legacy North Down area, an additional increment honoraria was paid to the Officer dealing with night time noise to perform pre- arranged out-of-hours visits and investigations, and in the legacy Ards area, time in lieu was offered, at a time and a half rate for the same service.

6

CW.14.10.15

Therefore, investigation of night-time and out-of-hour’s noise relied largely on the good will of the Officers and their dedication to helping the public as much as possible. On many occasions Officers would have to contact complainants on several occasions to check if it was suitable to attend to take measurements and/or witness a noise nuisance occurring, some types of noise measurement were also weather dependant. Those calls and disturbance to private life were currently not charged to the Council.

The cost of the current provision of a noise service after hours as described above was less than £2,000.

For personal safety reasons, the Officer would only visit a complainant out-of-hours who they had met and established contact with during office hours. Again for personal safety reasons an Officer attending out-of-hours to witness a nuisance (for example, persistent noisy parties) would only visit the complainant and would not visit the person responsible for the noisy party whilst the party was happening.

Potential improvements to the Noise Service Within the statistics for the past few years it would appear that one to two complaints per week fell into a category that could be dealt with using night-time noise powers and those generally on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night. However, if a service was provided and promoted as it was in Belfast then the number of incidents reported would increase. In order to address the potential enhancement of the service, the following options had been considered.

Option 1 Request that Belfast City Council through a Service Level Agreement extend the remit of their out of hours Noise team to include Ards and North Down.

The management of Belfast CC noise team had been approached regarding this option but had declined. The reasons given were that response times in their own area would suffer if they were in the Ards and North Down Area and that they were already operating at capacity, particularly as they had new areas in Lisburn and Castlereagh to cover.

Option 2 A Dedicated Out-of-hours team.

A limited out-of-hours team could be provided for the Borough using a new resource, EHO’s and the services of a security company operative for health and safety reasons. The Police could not guarantee release of resource at short notice to attend night-time noise incidents and protect Officers serving warning notices. It was suggested that two Officers would be employed to work Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights in the company of a security operative with Monday off, Tuesday and Wednesday doing paperwork associated with the night work and Thursday off to prepare for a weekend of evening work. Those hours would be worked on a shift basis to give Officers relief from constant night-time working.

Other staff would have to be prepared to provide cover for holidays or sickness.

7

CW.14.10.15

The minimum costs of that service would be as follows:

EHO x 2 Night-time Noise Salary and on £84,000 costs Security Operative £20,000 Overtime Additional Hours for holiday/ £10,000 Sickness for cover Heat Light office support £2,000 Additional Noise Measuring equipment £7,000 supply and calibration IT for serving warning notices £2,000 Additional Legal and admin costs £5,000 Mileage/Van operation £2,000-£4,000 Total £128,000.00

Option 3 Use the Noise Act if appropriate during planned Out-of-hours investigations.

In the investigation of party noise or noise from entertainment premises for nuisance it might be possible to invoke the Noise Act provisions with the support of an on-call security resource.

In order to invoke the Noise Act powers, an Officer of the Council must warn the owner of a dwelling or the person in control of a premises that they were of the opinion that the noise act was being breached and give them 20 minutes to stop the noise. An Officer should always be accompanied when issuing a warning.

If the noise did not stop then they have to measure it for 20mins in the home of the complainant. If the sound level exceeded the noise specified in the Act then a fixed penalty could be issued. In Belfast fixed penalties were always issued the day after the night-time offence to avoid confrontation/possible breaches of the peace.

Total Costs for this service were not clear but investigations suggested that a reputable security company was likely to request a £5,000-£7,000 retainer to guarantee a security operative within an hour and the call out cost between 11:00pm and 7:00am would be £75-£150. Therefore the projected cost could be £10,000 to £20,000, with perhaps a one off cost of up to £7,000 for additional equipment to ensure that a set was always available when manufacturer’s calibration was due.

Option 4 Further investigate the need for a dedicated night-time noise team through the community planning process.

The provision of a dedicated out-of-hours noise service to enforce Noise Act powers would be expensive however it was provided. Through the community planning process it may prove possible to assess the need for such a service in more detail, explore potential collaborative opportunities and assess the public’s appetite to pay for a night-time noise service.

RECOMMENDED that Options 3 and 4 are pursued and a firm costing and operating procedure is brought back to Council.

8

CW.14.10.15

Proposed by Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the recommendation be adopted.

In response to feedback from Alderman Irvine who asked if existing resources were adequate, the Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection recognised the costs involved, however, the proposed night-time service would assist in striking a balance in order for Officers to deal with ongoing noise complaints in residential areas. The Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection updated that since drafting the above report, Option 1 required to be amended as Belfast City Council, who had initially turned down the opportunity, had now offered to provide a similar service to that recommended under Options 3 and 4 at the same indicative costs but including cover during week nights, however, both Councils would then be tied into a two-year Service Level Agreement.

In respect of queries from Councillor Cooper and Councillor Wilson, the Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection responded that Council Officers could work with the Police in resolving noisy incidents of anti-social behaviour, however, necessary monitoring required under the Noise Act would take up to a minimum of one hour of Police Officer’s time. The Officer advised that Belfast City Council now dealt with 5,000 night-time noise complaints per annum whereas in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area, 583 warning letters and 11 fixed penalty notices had been issued and two prosecutions had taken place.

In response to feedback from Alderman Chambers, the Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection reported that currently there were 70/80 incidents per annum of night-time noise reported to the Council and the process of investigating a noise nuisance was put in place as detailed in the above report. The Officer outlined the current requirements under the Clean Neighbourhoods legislation highlighting that the personal safety of Council Officers required to be taken on board.

In respect of a query from Councillor Roberts, the Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection recommended Options 3 and 4 to the Committee.

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

5. QUEENS HALL ENTERTAINMENT – NOISE NUISANCE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 25 September 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the Queens Hall was a two storey building situated in West Street, Newtownards in a mixed commercial and residential area. It comprised of a Main Hall and library area on the ground floor with a snooker room upstairs. There was a development of residential accommodation now directly opposite the Hall, with other dwellings also located nearby in West Street, Newtownards.

The Queens Hall was owned by the Council, operated and managed by the Leisure and Amenities Service of the Community and Wellbeing Directorate. It was subject to

9

CW.14.10.15 an annual renewed Entertainment Licence. The present Entertainment Licence was currently up for renewal.

That Licence could subsequently be used when hiring the Hall for specific events throughout the year. Historically, the Hall had been used for a wide range of events over the years by many diverse Organisations.

Current position At present the Hall was available for hire and if required, entertainment could continue Monday to Sunday 09:00hours until 01:00hours. The Main Hall could accommodate 740 people (closely seated audience), 620 (dancing pop concerts) and 370 (dining Cabaret). The first floor could accommodate 240 people.

Alcohol could also be consumed on the premises on the grant of an occasional liquor licence. During the period 27 April 2015 to March 2016, a total of 36 bookings were made with 10 of those planned to continue after 11:00hours (until 01:00hours) with the potential for amplified music.

One Council employee was retained on site until the event ends.

Noise Complaints Sporadic complaints about noise were received by the Environmental Health Protection and Development Service (EHPDS) from nearby residents who in the past were reluctant to provide details and/or proceed with their complaint. In addition complainants were referring the matter directly to the Leisure Centre Staff and/or the Police.

However, in November 2014 EHPDS received a direct complaint from a nearby resident. The complaint referred to music breakout from the Hall itself and further noise from the subsequent patron dispersal. The complainant stated that this had been an ongoing problem but only with certain events.

Officers in accordance with the Council’s statutory obligation to investigate, subsequently carried out noise monitoring from within the complainant’s property at a similar event. Officers arrived at the complainant’s dwelling and set up monitoring equipment in the bedroom. As soon as they entered the bedroom they witnessed high and intrusive levels of noise. The levels obtained were greatly in excess of the recognised standard which should be afforded in anyone’s bedroom in order to be able to sleep.

Subjectively, Officers noted amplified music and were able to easily distinguish lyrics of songs in the bedroom, as well as shouting DJ voice overs and chanting from patrons.

Once the event ended Officers noted disturbance to local residents from the behaviour of patrons leaving the premises and associated vehicular traffic. Officers observed loud shouting, singing and rowdy behaviour.

It was clear that there was a breach of the Entertainment Licence and the nuisance provisions of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act.

10

CW.14.10.15

‘Noise levels shall be controlled in order not to cause annoyance to occupiers living close to the premises….’

Further complaints were received and all could be related back to the type and timing of the event. It was therefore confirmed that the likelihood of complaint was closely related to the type of event, whether music was present and the late finishing time. Given the age of the building it did not afford adequate protection from noise breakout. In addition, the residential accommodation including bedrooms were situated approximately 15m of the Queens Hall front doors.

Possible Changes to Booking Policy for Consideration In order to minimise noise disturbance to nearby residents it was proposed to introduce a change to the booking policy of the Queens Hall. That would be introduced in a graduated approach with a cut-off date of April 2016. That change would only affect approximately 1/3 of users as most users of the Hall did not need the late finishing time. Previous users of the facility affected by that proposed change would be contacted on an individual basis to fully explain the reasons behind it.

RECOMMENDED that following a period of engagement with users the booking policy for events held at the Queen Hall is updated with a finishing time for all events changed to 23:00hours and dispersal by 23:30hours, and that signage is provided at the exit of the building asking users to be mindful of the residential nature of the area and to act accordingly.

Proposed by Alderman Chambers, seconded by Councillor Roberts, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Menagh outlined his concerns that the proposed earlier finishing times would have a detrimental effect on the well-used Queens Hall, which had been in Newtownards for approximately 60 years and brought in revenue for the Council. Councillor Menagh suggested that noise warning signs should initially be put in place at the Hall, and he requested a recorded vote as he was totally opposed to the above proposal and therefore could not support the recommendation.

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) pointed out that any bookings up to 31 March 2016 would be unaffected if the closing times were amended.

Councillor Adair indicated his sympathy with local residents in the nearby vicinity but highlighted his concerns with the recommended finishing times in the above report.

Councillor Adair proposed as an amendment, seconded by Councillor Edmund that the finishing time for all events at weekends in the Queens Hall is changed to 23:30hours with dispersal by 24:00hours.

Councillor Menagh indicated that the Queens Hall was mainly used on weekend late nights. Councillor Boyle outlined that he could not support the amendment and he suggested that as this would affect one-third of regular bookings, noise warning signs should be put in place and those users could be requested to adjust noise levels accordingly.

11

CW.14.10.15

Alderman Chambers pointed out that the issue of sporadic noise complaints could potentially put the Council in an embarrassing and awkward situation when the Entertainments Licence for the Queens Hall required to be renewed. Alderman Chambers outlined two cases in the legacy Council where the Judge had refused an Entertainments Licence due to the noise of patrons leaving a premises, and another case when the judicial decision had not been made in favour of the old North Down Recycling Centre which had been situated at Rathgael the longest.

The Head of Leisure and Amenities reported that alternative measures to reduce noise levels had already been undertaken but due to the age of the building, the Queens Hall was no longer fit for music entertainment purposes. The Officer advised that the booking policy had also been reviewed in conjunction with regular users and assistance had also been sought from the Police to alleviate noise when patrons were leaving the Hall. The Head of Leisure and Amenities recognised that the Queens Hall was well used for generating fund raising but if events required to be held after 11:30pm, those could be accommodated in purpose built venues elsewhere in Newtownards.

The Director of Community and Wellbeing confirmed that the noise complaints could result in the Entertainments Licence being breached for the Queens Hall.

In respect of a query from Councillor Wilson, the Head of Leisure and Amenities confirmed that the ten currently planned events had occasional alcohol liquor licences and were due to take place at weekends. In response to a query from Councillor Cooper, the Head of Leisure and Amenities confirmed that the suggested amended closing time of 23:30hours and dispersal by 24:00hours would not alleviate the situation. Councillor Cooper responded that he could not therefore support the amendment.

On being put to the meeting, the amendment FELL, with 5 voting for and 7 against.

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) sought Members feedback before taking a recorded vote on the original recommendation. In respect of a query from Councillor Boyle, the Head of Leisure and Amenities confirmed that the complaints concerned regular late night weekend bookings at the Queens Hall. and the three main aspects were: - Noise through the walls - Noise from the doors continually opening/closing - Noise from patrons on dispersal from the premises

In respect of feedback from Councillor Smart, the Head of Leisure and Amenities advised that as far as he was aware the recommended finishing time of 11:00pm/11:30pm was standard practice. The Officer also informed Members that discussions had commenced with the SEELB in relation to reconfiguring the Queens Hall into a shared arts space in conjunction with the Library Service.

In response to queries from Councillor Kennedy, the Head of Leisure and Amenities confirmed that informal noise complaints had been received and one formal complaint which had resulted in noise levels being measured. Additionally two further complaints had been received following weekend events on Friday 9 October

12

CW.14.10.15 and Saturday 10 October 2015. The Officer outlined that the Council had engaged with customers making late night bookings and attempts had been made to alleviate the three main aspects of noise complaints. The Director of Community and Wellbeing confirmed that the problem recorded was the building itself causing noise pollution from the entertainment.

In respect of queries from Councillor Cooper, the Head of Leisure and Amenities explained that the legacy Council had considered plans for the Queens Hall in the longer term and if the Library Service provided its share of capital revenue then the Council had necessary reserves in order to fund the planned project for reconfiguration of the Hall into a shared arts space but in the meantime Council required to implement a short term solution. The Officer advised that a Consultant could be appointed to look at the possibility of insulating the Hall, however, that would still not deal with the problem of noise caused by patrons leaving the premises. In respect of a query from Councillor Menagh, the Head of Leisure and Amenities reported that one of the recent weekend complaints had been about a broken bottle at approximately 9:00pm which required to be further investigated by the Council. Councillor Menagh commented that to his knowledge there had always been nearby housing in East Street, Newtownards.

At this stage the Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) took a recorded vote on the original proposal as previously requested by Councillor Menagh, which resulted as follows:

FOR (10) AGAINST (4) ABSTAINED (3) ABSENT (1) Alderman Councillors Councillors Councillor Chambers Cooper Allen Anderson Irvine Kennedy Boyle Councillors Menagh Martin Adair Smart Armstrong Brooks Dunne Edmund Roberts Thompson Wilson

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Chambers, seconded by Councillor Roberts, with 10 voting For and 4 voting Against that the recommendation be adopted.

6. RIGHT OF WAY AND COASTAL PATH AT STATION ROAD, BANGOR – UPDATE (FILE 141512)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 September 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the purpose of this report was to seek Council support to develop a new scheme to stabilise a section of Station Road, Bangor which forms part of the Coastal Path.

13

CW.14.10.15

Council would be aware of the existence of the Public Right of Way along the frontal section of Station Road, Craigavad and the issues surrounding the potential instability of the supporting sea wall and road surface.

Former North Down BC Members might remember that legal advice was sought in relation to this matter, clarifying that no liability or responsibility existed for Council to either monitor the seawall, or to defend it. That did not however preclude Council from taking some action on a ‘without prejudice’ basis and in January 2014, Council agreed to continue to support Council Officers in exploring grant aid opportunities for the above remediation works.

The two most recent attempts to secure grant aid were unfortunately unsuccessful and included the following:

 Application submitted to the Northern Ireland Environment Agency through the Natural Heritage Grant Programme in July 2013.

 Application submitted for European Union Grant Aid through the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development under Measure 3.3 Encouragement of Tourist Activities in October 2013.

The above applications included a proposal to install a concrete ‘toe beam’ to stabilise the sea wall, reconfigure the protective rock armour and carry out the necessary road works. Feedback reported that the applications were unsuccessful due to oversubscription and in view of the proposals being deemed as necessary in terms of maintenance as opposed to offering any enhancement to tourism.

In the interests of securing the long term future of the North Down Coastal Path and its continued availability to the public as a Right of Way, the Community and Wellbeing Directorate, with support from the Environment Directorate and Project Management were keen to seek further funding opportunities.

In order to ensure that the proposed scheme was more attractive to potential funders it was apparent that further design options should be investigated to develop a scheme which had credibility in terms of tourism enhancement and was not simply a maintenance project.

The design of a new path structure on the seaward side of the sea wall was a possible option and it was proposed that Countryside Recreation Officers meet with specialist consultants in the first instance to discuss possible solutions.

It was recommended that Council Officers progress towards developing a revised scheme, which was more attractive to funding bodies and included design development of the preferred option, budget estimates for the proposed works and receipt of the relevant statutory approvals. The preferred design should be developed to a stage whereby it was suitable and ready for inclusion in a grant application when a funding opportunity is identified.

14

CW.14.10.15

It was understood that matters such as liability, title, ongoing maintenance and a request for Council’s financial contribution would be the subject of future discussion and further information would be reported back to Council in due course.

RECOMMENDED that Council grants approval that Officers proceed with the development of a new scheme for Station Road which is suitable for submission for future grant aid opportunities should they arise, subject to receipt of the necessary approvals.

Proposed by Councillor Dunne, seconded by Councillor Adair, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Dunne welcomed the above report and recommendation anticipating that it would lead to further improvements along the Coastal Path, which was a key aspect of the Borough of Ards and North Down.

Alderman Chambers indicated his support of the recommendation and that Council Officers would continue to seek funding for this work from outside funding bodies.

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

7. ULSTER IN BLOOM AWARDS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 29 September 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that following the 2015 Ulster In Bloom Competition, the awards were announced at Cookstown on 10 September 2015.

Ards and North Down had a number of entries in the competition for towns and villages throughout the Borough.

Bangor was placed joint third with Antrim in the Large Town category behind Coleraine (1st) and Larne (2nd), whilst Groomsport was placed joint second with Saintfield in the Large Village category, behind Hillsborough.

RECOMMENDED that Members note this report.

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

8. GREEN FLAG AWARD (FILE CG 11902)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 29 September 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the Green Flag Award scheme was the benchmark national standard for parks and green spaces in the UK.

It was first launched in 1996 to recognise and reward the best green spaces in the country. The first awards were given in 1997 and many years later, it continued to provide the high level of quality against which our parks and green spaces were measured. It is also seen as a way of encouraging others to achieve high

15

CW.14.10.15 environmental standards, setting a benchmark of excellence in recreational green areas.

The legacy Council in Ards agreed to submit Kiltonga Nature Reserve for the award, and the site was successful in attaining Green Flag Status in 2014 and 2015. It was proposed to submit an application for Kiltonga for the 2016 award in order to further retain that status.

In order to develop the Council’s commitment to the Green Flag Award within the new Borough, it was proposed to submit a further application to the scheme for Castle Park, Bangor. That application would include the parkland area and the Walled Garden.

Application fees were £650 per site and that could be met from within existing budgets. Applications must be submitted, together with management plans by 31 January 2016.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves both Kiltonga and Castle Park to go forward with application for Green Flag Award Status in 2016.

Proposed by Councillor Boyle, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the recommendation be adopted.

In respect of a query from Alderman Chambers, the Head of Leisure and Amenities explained that the legacy Council’s application to the Green Flag Award Scheme assisted Council Officers to focus on achieving and maintaining the benchmark national standard for Kiltonga Nature Reserve. Also the Award Scheme was a catalyst for improving and developing Kiltonga as well as providing opportunities for Council to engage with local stakeholders. Councillor Menagh concurred with the Council Officer that the Award Scheme assisted Kiltonga to be recognised as an outstanding area of natural beauty, under the management of local stakeholders in conjunction with Council.

In respect of feedback from Councillor Kennedy, the Head of Leisure and Amenities assured that necessary steps were being taken to educate the local community in ensuring the status of Kiltonga was maintained in 2016.

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

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) expressed best wishes to Council Officers in submission of two applications for the Green Flag Award Scheme 2016.

9. GLENLYON PARK, HOLYWOOD (FILE LP 16)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 29 September 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that Members were advised that following the development of a management plan under the legacy North Down Borough Council, the Parks and Cemeteries team planned to undertake the following works during the winter period at Glenlyon Park, Holywood.

16

CW.14.10.15

The works would involve the removal of un-native and species poor planting and its replacement with a suitable under planting. That would be completed in two ways. Firstly by significant planting of native, locally sourced (and therefore genetically similar) trees supplied by the Conservation Volunteers. Those native species contributed more to the insect and bird fauna than any other single element of the ecosystem. Cleared areas would be replanted with native trees or were due to be sown in native wild flower seed. That seed was also sourced from local stock and contained only local native species suitable to our local climatic and cultural conditions. Mixtures containing plants such as Tufted Vetch, Wood Avens, Wild Garlic and Foxglove would be utilised. Changes in cutting regimes to create different habitats would take place also adding to the overall area diversity within the location. Additional works would include the redefining of gravel pathways within the site.

The removal of the Rhododendron and Laurel, whilst undoubtedly having an effect at reducing any problem of antisocial behaviour, represented so much more of a commitment to better the existing flora and therefore to encourage the fauna of the site, from insects, to birds, to mammals therefore making the area a much more interesting and exciting place to visit.

All the works identified above could be covered from within existing budgets.

The Council’s communications team would be engaged to promote the need and programming of the works and notices would be placed within the site providing information on the works.

A further issue with regard to the Glenlyon site, was the impact from a large landslide from adjacent land. Officers were currently investigating that matter and a report would be brought before Members in due course.

RECOMMENDED that Members note this report.

Proposed by Councillor Dunne, seconded by Councillor Roberts, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Roberts referred to experience of similar work undertaken at Stricklands Glen, Bangor, and highlighted the importance of communication with local Organisations before conducting the works as detailed in the above report.

Councillor Dunne welcomed the above positive report and plans for undertaking the works at Glenlyon Park, which was a key feature in Holywood.

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

10. COMMUNITY TRAILS – ARDS PENINSULA (FILE 142079) (Appendix II, Annexes 1 and 2)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Outdoor Recreation NI Feasibility Study, Peninsula Healthy Living Partnership Letter and covering report dated 1 October 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the purpose of this report was to 17

CW.14.10.15

seek Council support for a proposal presented to the Community & Wellbeing Directorate by Peninsula Healthy Living Partnership (PHLP) in April 2015.

PHLP was a voluntary, community based Organisation that was committed to heath improvement through partnership, community involvement and the promotion of healthy lifestyles and was supported by the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. Successful initiatives included ‘Peninsula Community Transport Ltd.’ and ‘Peninsula After-schools’. PHLP were actively involved in the planning and delivery of youth activities, community projects, physical activity and educational programmes throughout the Ards Peninsula, all with an emphasis on improved health and wellbeing.

In May 2014, PHLP appointed Outdoor Recreation Northern Ireland (ORNI) to assess the feasibility of developing Community Trails in nine villages within the Ards Peninsula including; Ballyhalbert, Ballywalter, Carrowdore, Cloughey, Greyabbey, Kircubbin, Millisle, Portaferry and Portavogie.

A Community Trail was defined as a trail that connects communities to outdoor spaces and was close to where people live and work. Same could be situated in both urban and rural settings and provide opportunities for walking and cycling on people’s ‘doorsteps’. A trail included areas of green space, and was a clearly defined route, at least 70% of which should be off road and therefore traffic free.

A detailed and comprehensive report titled ‘Ards Peninsula Feasibility Study’ was issued by ORNI and identified 25 potential Community Trails within the nine villages over public and private land, including the following:

 Coastal foreshore routes  Woodland loops  Riverside walks  Short linkages between existing walking routes  Private estate loops  Trim trails (i.e. fitness trails with exercise stations and/ or play equipment)

As part of the above study, ORNI had recommended a variety of short and medium term options for each village, each requiring varying levels of development to provide new recreational opportunities for the local population.

In order to progress this proposal, a further feasibility study was required to agree priority projects, identify individual project costs suitable for development and delivery ‘on the ground’, examine access arrangements and develop each of the projects to a stage suitable for inclusion in funding applications.

ORNI had proposed that a six part, next steps feasibility study was produced as summarised below:

 Step 1 Agree Priority Projects Agree priority projects through consultation with communities, Councillors, Council Officers and other stakeholders including landowners. Ultimately the

18

CW.14.10.15

decision of which projects would be developed would be the decision of Ards and North Down Borough Council.

 Step 2 Identify Access and Management Status Identify the most appropriate access arrangements through negotiation and agreement with public and private landowners, and identify management and maintenance costs.

 Step 3 Identify Project Costs As required for future funding applications, establish the cost for the design and development of each priority project.

 Step 4 Build Project Case Identify the benefits of each priority project which would ultimately strengthen funding applications by highlighting the need for and benefit of each project.

 Step 5 Identify Funding Sources/ Opportunities Identify eligible funding opportunities for the development of each priority project.

 Step 6 Gain approval from Council Present the results of the above study back to Council and seek approval before proceeding with project delivery.

The above proposal presented Council with a unique opportunity to be involved in the development of public walking and cycling trails in areas which had limited access to safe ‘off road’ routes, in partnership with PHLP, with specialist input from ORNI and through consultation with the relative interested parties and stakeholders. Countryside Recreation, within the Leisure and Amenities Section, recognises the need for managed, sustainable, countryside access opportunities within the Borough, and was supportive of the above proposal in the interests of encouraging residents to enjoy the benefits of the outdoors which were known to have positive effects on the population’s physical and mental wellbeing.

PHLP had requested that Council consider their proposal and request for financial assistance in the sum of £9,000, and Officer support to enable the ‘next steps’ to be implemented.

RECOMMENDED that Council approve Peninsula Healthy Living Partnership’s request for financial assistance up to the maximum of £9,000 towards the appointment of a firm to carry out a ‘next steps’ feasibility study to further progress proposals to develop Community Trails within the Ards Peninsula, as a PHLP and Council partnership project. It is further recommended that the Councils Countryside Recreation Officer supports this initiative through the project steering group. The offer would be made on condition that the Council becomes joint owner of the final report.

Proposed by Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Boyle, that the recommendation be adopted.

(Councillor Dunne left the meeting at this stage – 8.15pm)

19

CW.14.10.15

Councillor Adair welcomed the above project in conjunction with the Peninsula Healthy Living Partnership, and that funding might be available from the Down Rural Development Partnership and he encouraged Members to support the recommendation.

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

11. CYCLE TO WORK SCHEME (FILE CG 142079) (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Legacy Council Internal Policy Document and covering report dated 24 September 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that Ards Borough Council in the latter half of 2013 introduced a Cycle to Work Scheme and associated Policy (see Appendix). That proved to be very popular with staff and over 50 members of staff acquired a bicycle though the scheme. Members were now being asked to consider rolling this out across the new Council so that the new Council and all staff could avail of its benefits.

That government supported scheme saved an employer money through reduced National Insurance contributions, and employees between 32% and 42% of the cost of a new bike and accessories. Furthermore, it promoted both employee health and wellbeing helping to improve attendance and productivity, and allows the Council to provide an employer’s benefit to existing and prospective staff.

Procurement of Supplier of a scheme

Ards Borough Council used a call off contract for a bike to work scheme negotiated by ESPO (Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation) which Councils could continue to use. That had already tendered for a bike to work scheme for the public sector and the contract was awarded to Halfords. Halfords used 25 independent cycle retailers plus their 14 stores to supply cycles to employees.

Costs & Benefits to Council

The initial cost to Council was the cash flow required to purchase the bikes and equipment. That money would be recovered in full through a salary sacrifice scheme over 12 months, so the net cost from that aspect was zero. However, as the purchase was recovered through salary sacrifice, the Council was not required to pay the national insurance contribution relating to the value of the payback, representing a saving. For example, an outlay valued at £30,000 (50 bikes at £600 each) would realise a saving of £4,140 on National Insurance contributions by the Council.

Other benefits to the Council included

 Adding Cycle to work as a voluntary benefits package potentially improved competitive advantage as an employer  Increased staff loyalty, productivity and higher levels of employee satisfaction  Increased employee morale and a contribution to health and wellbeing, therefore helping to reduce absenteeism

20

CW.14.10.15

 In addition, the particular scheme being proposed in this report would provide a 12½ % cash back to the Council on each purchase to allow it to invest further as it see fits.

Benefits to Employees

 Employees had the opportunity to become fitter, healthier and more energetic and focused at work  Staff would save money in using a cycle rather than a car for journeys related to work and outside of work, and reduce carbon emissions  Staff could enjoy a significantly reduced cost when purchasing a bike.  In addition, the particular scheme being proposed in this report would provide each employee with a 12 months 20% discount card for cycling accessories from the primary supplier (Halfords)

Examples of employee savings a) PAYE at 20%

Retail cost of bike plus VAT £600 PAYE @ 20% -£120 National Insurance @ 12% -£72 Total Savings £192 Final Cost over 12 months £408 Gross salary sacrifice per month £50

Net Salary Sacrifice per month £34

% Savings 32% b) PAYE at 40%

Retail cost of bike plus VAT £600 PAYE @ 40% -£240 National Insurance @ 2% -£12 Total Savings £252 Final Cost over 12 months £348 Gross salary sacrifice per months £50

Net Salary Sacrifice per month £29

% Savings 42%

At the end of the 12 month period, the cycle would have been deemed to become a benefit in kind with a nominal value of the benefit. In the past, that taxable benefit was repaid through the P11D method, equating to around £2.09 per month for a further 12 months when the cycle was a year old on the example above. However, Halfords now had a second option, that was, an extended hire period option whereby the cycle would at the end of 12 months transfer from the Council’s ownership back to Halfords. At that point the employee could choose to pay the nominal fee and

21

CW.14.10.15 acquire the bike, or continue to ‘hire it’ from Halfords but at no cost for a further 2 or 3 years until the bike was of no value in accordance with HMRC’s calculations. That removed the need for the employee or employer to pay anything further in relation to the scheme, and shifts any further administration from the Council to Halfords. It was recommended that this second option is selected by the Council.

RECOMMENDED that the Cycle to Work Scheme as detailed in this report and content of the associated policy are adopted.

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

Councillor Roberts welcomed this fantastic opportunity for Council employees to avail of this benefit, which promoted wellbeing and made a saving on National Insurance Contributions by the Council.

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

12. GOOD RELATIONS GRANT PROGRAMME 2015 – 2016 (FILE 382000) (Appendix IV, Annexes 1, 2 and 3)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy Good Relations Application Form, Guidance Notes, Evaluation Form and covering report dated 30 September 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that arising from the Council’s Good Relations Audit and resulting Action Plan 2015 - 2016, Council had agreed to support a Good Relations Grant Programme for 2015–16. The relevant forms were as attached to this report (Annexes 1 to 3).

Subject to Council approval, the Good Relations Grant Programme would open for applications on 29 October 2015 and the deadline for completed applications would be 26 November 2015. The grants scheme would be publicised through the press, the Councils’ website and face book page, along with notification being issued directly to groups registered on the Council’s community database and Networks contacts.

A budget of £32,000 had been ring-fenced for the grants scheme, and advice and support would be available from the Community and Culture team for groups wishing to apply. Following the closing date, applications would be scored against set criteria and Officers recommendations would be brought to Council in December 2015 for consideration.

Local Community Groups and the voluntary sector would be invited to apply for funding to deliver good relations/good race relations projects. There might also be opportunities for partnership working between statutory agencies, the voluntary and community sectors using community development approaches to deliver innovative good relations/good race relations endeavours.

22

CW.14.10.15

The aims of the Good Relations Small Grants Programme in line with OFMDFM approved priorities were as follows:

 Children and Young People  Our Shared Community  Our Safe Community  Our Cultural Expression

All applications must demonstrate that they meet at least one of the following aims:

 Addressing the influence of paramilitarism and intra community conflict  Build confidence to address silent sectarianism and racism  Addressing low educational attainment through alternative educational opportunity and informal education.  Increase understanding of local culture  Exploring and understanding Good Relations through diversity & cultural diversity.

RECOMMENDED that Council approves the Good Relations Grants Programme application process and related application form, grants programme guidance notes and grant programme evaluation and that the Council proceeds to open a call for applications.

Proposed of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Roberts, that the recommendation be adopted.

In respect of queries from Councillor Boyle, the Head of Community and Culture explained that the related Grants forms had been drafted by the Good Relations Officers taking on board best practice from both legacy Councils, on the basis of criteria set by the OFMDFM. In response to a query from Councillor Wilson, the Officer outlined the process for marking the applications which would be brought to the Committee for approval before ratification by the Council.

In response to a query from Councillor Allen about an information session for potential applicants, the Head of Community and Culture advised that Council’s Good Relations Officers could either be contacted directly or if necessary information sessions could be organised to assist Community Groups in completing application forms. Councillor Menagh referred to the limited amount of funding in comparison with previous awards to the two legacy Council areas, however, finances available would assist smaller good relations projects, and he anticipated this situation might be reviewed by the NI Assembly at some stage in the future.

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) indicated that Members should assist with encouraging local Community Groups and Organisations to submit applications for the good relations funding.

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

23

CW.14.10.15

13. NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL FUNDING FOR SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND PROJECTS (Appendix V)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- DSD letter dated 6 August 2015 and covering report dated 21 September 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that correspondence had been received from Jerome Burns, Deputy Director, Southern Regional Development Office, Department of Social Development (DSD), requesting that the Council gives a commitment in principle, to part fund a 3G Sports Pitch in Kilcooley that had been identified through the Kilcooley Neighbourhood Renewal Vision and Action Plan for the area. Officers had been assisting the Kilcooley Partnership to drive forward the project, including developing the outline design and in preparing the planning application.

The total cost of the scheme was originally anticipated to cost approximately £606,000, with the Social Investment Fund (SIF) managed by OFMDFM, contributing £356,000. DSD had given an indication that, subject to the usual caveats, it would be minded to contribute £250,000 from the Neighbourhood Renewal Investment Fund budget ring-fenced for Kilcooley.

Members would be aware that under Transferring Functions, the budget for the Neighbourhood Investment Fund was due to transfer to Council on 1 April 2016 and as such Council would have the responsibility to deliver the fund from the beginning of the new financial year, and so this commitment would be drawn from those transferring funds. It would therefore mirror the commitment already given by DSD should they be responsible for the funding.

Following an economic appraisal and review of the scheme, DSD had advised that the cost of the 3G pitch had increased (although a final figure had not been provided). The Department had also confirmed that the project would not proceed until the next financial year, therefore DSD had requested that Council meets the commitment of £250,000 from the transferring budget from 1 April 2016. The Department had confirmed that it was likely that OFMDFM would meet the shortfall.

RECOMMENDED that should the transfer of DSD functions proceed as envisaged, Council approves the a commitment from the transferring Neighbourhood Renewal Investment Fund budget of £250,000 subject to a favourable economic appraisal, all statutory approvals and any shortfall for the project being met from other sources.

Proposed by Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Martin, that the recommendation be adopted.

Alderman Irvine highlighted the importance of this 3G Sports Pitch in Kilcooley for the people of Bangor in terms of pitch provision across the area. In respect of queries from Alderman Irvine and Councillor Martin, the Head of Community and Culture assured that Council did not have any financial liability as £250,000 would come from DSD’s transferring Capital Investment Fund, and therefore not from Council’s own funds.

Alderman Chambers welcomed completion of the project ascertaining that there would not be any reduction in the £250,000 commitment from DSD’s Capital

24

CW.14.10.15

Investment Fund budget, which would guarantee this project and there would be no negative impacts on other Neighbourhood Renewal projects such as the revitalisation of the five towns within the Borough. The Head of Community and Culture undertook to keep Members advised of any financial figures available.

Councillor Boyle advised that he had read the above report and DSD letter, and he indicated his agreement with the recommendation for Council approval ‘in principle’. Councillor Boyle anticipated that Members would be kept informed of any subsequent financial commitment through the normal reporting process.

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) pointed out that that the transfer of DSD functions and commitment from the transferring Neighbourhood Renewal Investment Fund budget of £250,000 was recommended for approval ‘in principle’ at this stage subject to a favourable economic appraisal.

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

14. NOTICES OF MOTION

14.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cummings

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) welcomed Councillor Cummings to the meeting and invited him to speak on his Motion.

Proposed by Councillor Cummings, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that this Council acknowledges the endeavours of the newly formed Edmund De Wind VC Centenary Committee who are raising funds to purchase a WW1 Field Gun, identical to that which was gifted to the people of Comber post WW1 and was subsequently removed during the governments WW2 scrap iron appeal. Further, the Council tasks an Officer to complete a report into the feasibility of permanently positioning the Field Gun back in the Memorial Garden, The Square, Comber in time to coincide with and to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of Second Lieutenant Edmund De Wind, VC of the Royal Irish Rifles who was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for acts of gallantry at Thiepval, France in 1918.

Councillor Cummings outlined the following points:-

1. This was an idea that emerged from the community, which was owned by the community and the citizens involved had undertaken to raise 100% funds. 2. That twenty-two strong group had formed a committee made up of representatives from the Royal British Legion, Comber Historical Society, the Community Regeneration Group, Loyal Orders, Cultural Forum and local Elected representatives, which had the support of the local MP. (A local clergyman had also expressed keen interest in the story because of its historical significance). 3. The group/committee recognised that the Council was crucial to the process, being the custodian of the Memorial Garden in the Square (gifted to the people of Comber in 1952). They were sensitive to the views of the wider community and keen to see a wider community conversation. The motion required to be adopted

25

CW.14.10.15

in order to authorise an Officer to oversee and monitor, and officially interact with the committee. 4. The group recognised the enormity of this undertaking and its success which relied on three essential elements – Feasibility; Funding; Planning

Councillor Cummings concluded that this was an honourable and dignified gesture by the citizens who were keen to mark the centenary of the death of an extraordinary son of Comber and he requested Members to support the motion.

Councillor Cooper thanked Councillor Cummings for bringing the motion forward in recognition of the historic Comber war hero, Second Lieutenant De Wind, VC who had served under the Royal Irish Rifles. Councillor Cooper remarked on the appropriate timing and also specifically thanked the Organisations in Comber that were already involved including the Royal British Legion and Loyal Orders. Councillor Cooper anticipated that wider community support would be provided and he encouraged Members to support the above motion.

Councillor Boyle advised that himself and perhaps other Council Members had received correspondence from a female Comber resident requesting that some issues were raised in regards to the motion. Councillor Boyle recognised that the legacy Ards Borough Council had approved the erection of different Memorials in Comber Square. Councillor Boyle sought comment on planned consultation with the business community located around the Square and the process of consulting local residents, as there appeared to be some level of local objection.

Councillor Menagh expressed his support for the motion especially as a lot of work had already been done involving the local community and there was capacity in Comber Square for a further memorial.

Alderman Chambers referred to the correspondence from a Comber resident, however, he expressed his view that, for example, the war memorial (U-boat Gun) in Ward Park, Bangor did not glorify war or guns but had been placed there for the purposes of remembering the World Wars which was important for future generations. War memorials also provided an opportunity for parents to tell their children past local history. Alderman Chambers pointed out that the next stage in submission of a planning application for permanently positioning the Field Gun would involve a consultation process therefore he indicated his support for the motion.

Councillor Wilson indicated that it was important to remember the sacrifice of war victims, however, he shared Councillor Boyle’s concerns and sought more information on issues such as any effect on the farmers market.

Councillor Roberts advised that he had responded to the Comber resident’s correspondence and acknowledged her suggested alternatives in recognising the war victim. Councillor Roberts highlighted the importance of wider consultation with local residents and businesses in Comber.

Councillor Martin concurred with Councillor Boyle that Council Members were here to represent constituents. Councillor Martin commended Councillors Cummings and Cooper for the motion stressing the importance of recognising the war victim’s

26

CW.14.10.15 sacrifice in the same way as, for example, E B Bingham VC, Battle of Jutland victims and P B Mayne. Councillor Martin concurred with Alderman Chambers that war memorials such as the (U-boat Gun) in Ward Park drew public attention to remembering the wars and provided opportunities for parents to explain to their children the historic background of how our freedom of democracy had been paid for by unselfish sacrifice. Councillor Martin stressed that no-one sought to glorify war but sensitively remember the sacrifice of Comber war victims and he concurred that sufficient consultation would be conducted in the planning process.

Councillor Kennedy congratulated the various Community Groups in Comber already involved, including the Royal British Legion and the opportunity for local residents to bring this project to completion with an input from Council. Councillor Kennedy highlighted that Second Lieutenant Edmund De Wind, VC was a shining example of war heroes who had given their lives for town and country, lessons had been learned from the past, and this was a fantastic proposal for a fitting memorial in Comber Square.

Councillor Cummings thanked Members for their contribution to the above discussion and responded to queries raised as follows:

 Email to Members; Councillor Cummings had not been sent that email but he welcomed it as a sign that the community conversation had started and he knew Irene McBride and would contact her to discuss her letter. The committee were keen to have a broader conversation and over the next three years involve local Schools, Churches and the wider community.

 Comber Chamber of Commerce had members and input on the Comber Community Regeneration Committee.

 Community Regeneration Committee had already been consulted and (subject to Council’s involvement), it was anticipated that they could undertake a governance role in relation to assisting the pursuit of Heritage Lottery funding.

 The Farmers Market was based in the Comber Parish Church car park and would not be affected in any negative way by the proposal.

Councillor Cummings summed up that this was an honourable gesture and those involved should be commended for their sense of vision. It was encouraging to witness a genuine expression of respect towards an extraordinary citizen who made an extraordinary sacrifice for no other reason than out of a sense of duty, but was justifiably awarded the Victoria Cross (VC). That generation of citizens had secured the peace, democracy and freedom of speech which everyone enjoyed today.

In response to a query from Councillor Boyle concerning consultation, the Director of Community and Wellbeing explained that this was a community initiative and not as he understood it subject to statutory consultation, but through the planning application neighbours and nearby businesses would be notified. Councillor Wilson established that the Officer’s report on the feasibility of this project would come before Council for approval and should also deal with this aspect.

27

CW.14.10.15

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cummings, seconded by Councillor Cooper that the motion be adopted and that Officers bring back a report on the feasibility of permanently positioning the Field Gun back in the Memorial Garden, The Square, Comber in time to coincide with and to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of Second Lieutenant Edmund De Wind, VC.

(Councillor Cummings left the meeting at this stage – 9.00pm)

At this stage of the meeting there was a recess at 9.00pm and the meeting reconvened at 9.15pm.

14.2 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cooper

Proposed by Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Menagh that this Council recognises the startling level of suicides in N.I. and asks Officers to bring back a report outlining all aspects of suicide prevention adopted by other UK Councils with a view to producing and adopting a policy specifically aimed at reducing the risk of further suicides in our Borough.

Councillor Cooper advised that the matter of suicide prevention had arisen from reports on Eisenhower Pier and Bangor Marina presented at the Regeneration and Development Services Committee on 3 September 2015. Councillor Cooper referred to recent suicide attempts advising that since 1988, there had been more deaths of that nature than during the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland. The statistics for males were 78% (i.e. 8 out of every 10 suicides) and the main age category was up to 50 years old with the remainder being up to 75 years old. Councillor Cooper stressed the importance of Council addressing this matter advising that UK Councils, such as England and Scotland had different policies on suicide prevention. Councillor Cooper urged Members to support the above motion and he suggested that himself and Alderman Henry, as Mental Health Champions would initially set up a small group in conjunction with relevant Council Officers for the purposes of drafting a policy on suicide prevention in order to recognise and address the seriousness of this matter.

Councillor Menagh expressed his support of the motion and this opportunity for Council to provide a champion role in adopting a policy on suicides. Councillor Roberts commended the motion and offered his support for it. Alderman Irvine thanked Councillor Cooper for bringing the motion forward and suggested that Council should work in partnership with the DHSSPS on drafting a policy.

Councillor Martin also commended Councillor Cooper on the motion and he highlighted the good work of FASA which was an agency who worked with families affected by suicide and organised an annual memorial service. Councillor Martin encouraged that the Council would work in conjunction with appropriate Statutory Agencies and Voluntary Organisations in order to address this matter.

Councillor Boyle congratulated Councillor Cooper on this very important motion and welcomed an Officer’s report on the subject of suicide prevention as it affected a lot of local people, was difficult to talk about, and many different circumstances directly

28

CW.14.10.15 affected immediate family members. Councillor Boyle also supported the work of FASA and concurred that Council should work with other such Organisations in order to provide some assistance.

Alderman Chambers advised of his personal experience due to a far out member of his family committing suicide pointing out that there had been no outward indication. Families of suicide victims often suffered mental torture and experienced feelings of recrimination and despair after such a loss. Alderman Chambers indicated his support and encouraged that Council would work other Agencies in accessing existing resources in order to assist in the prevention of suicides.

Councillor Kennedy congratulated Councillor Cooper on bringing forward the issue of suicide prevention which was a step forwards in raising awareness of depressive mental illness. Councillor Kennedy advised of his personal experience in suffering from depression for approximately 25 years and he welcomed that the barriers of discussing mental illness had come down in recent years. Councillor Kennedy suggested that it would be useful to have a list of networking services readily available for anyone seeking support and that Council should work with FASA and relevant Organisations in that regard. Councillor Kennedy stated that it was an honour to support this motion.

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) remarked on how the above motion had struck a chord with Members and invited Councillor Cooper to sum up the proposal.

Councillor Cooper expressed that he was delighted with Members feedback and overwhelming support. Councillor Cooper also recognised Council as being one of two pioneer Local Authorities in its appointment of Mental Health Champions advising that he felt strongly about this matter as an ex-soldier losing comrades due to mental illness after retirement from the army. Councillor Cooper thanked individual Members who had spoken on the devastating effects of suicide and he welcomed the opportunity of exploring a suicide prevention policy with FASA and relevant Agencies. Councillor Cooper especially thanked Councillor Kennedy for his admission of depression, disclosing that he had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Councillor Cooper concluded that he looked forward to ratification of his motion at the full Council meeting on 28 October 2015.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Menagh that the motion be adopted and that Officers bring back a report outlining all aspects of suicide prevention adopted by other UK Councils with a view to producing and adopting a policy specifically aimed at reducing the risk of further suicides in our Borough.

14.3 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Martin

Councillor Martin proposed, seconded by Councillor Menagh that this Council requests a report on the feasibility of rolling out a pilot scheme to local Primary schools in our Council area which would provide the opportunity for school children to learn basic computer programming techniques.

29

CW.14.10.15

Councillor Martin spoke to his motion advising that it was EU coding week and he stressed the importance of preparing a workforce of computer programmers for employment in ten years time in order to meet the needs of job demands. Councillor Martin outlined that Governments in other countries were introducing coding at Primary School level as it was too late to leave until pupils reached secondary education stage. Councillor Martin advised that he had investigated this matter with Stranmillis University College and it was suggested that a pilot ICT coding scheme could be rolled out to P6/P7 pupils in Primary Schools. Councillor Menagh concurred with Councillor Martin that Primary School children were adept at computer skills and this would be an opportunity for the Council to take on board.

Alderman Chambers indicated that although he concurred with the sentiments of the motion, he was unable to support it unless it was agreed that Council should progress this matter with the Department of Education and Education Authority. As a computer technician in his daily work, Councillor Wilson concurred that there was a skills shortage in computer programming but he was surprised to learn that ICT was not on the Primary School curriculum for P7, however, this matter should be addressed through the Department of Education.

Councillor Boyle suggested that Council should support education and request Officers to initially bring back a report on the feasibility of rolling out a pilot scheme for Members further deliberation. Councillor Boyle also suggested that Council could bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Education. Councillor Roberts indicated that he supported any education on computer skills and that he concurred with Councillor Boyle’s viewpoint to initially request a report from Council Officers.

In response to the above debate regarding ownership of this matter, Councillor Martin pointed out that education could be seen as a wider wellbeing matter and he reminded of the appalling decisions taken by the Education Authority in light of educational underachievement in Northern Ireland. In respect of feedback sought from the Chairman (Councillor Armstrong), the Director of Community and Wellbeing provided clarification that adoption of the motion would enable Officers to initially investigate the appropriateness and feasibility of taking any further steps.

Councillor Martin thanked Members for their contribution advising that he envisaged Council could act in a facilitating role and perhaps lobby the Minister of Education and relevant statutory bodies responsible for education. Councillor Martin suggested that in the absence of funding from the Education Authority, that computer programming might be taken on board by after-School Clubs and that Council could drive this project forwards in the interests of the creation of future computer companies in Ards and North Down.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Martin, seconded by Councillor Menagh, with 14 voting For, 0 voting Against 2 Abstaining and 2 Absent that the motion be adopted and that Officers bring back a report on the feasibility of rolling out a pilot scheme to local Primary schools in our Council area which would provide the opportunity for school children to learn basic computer programming techniques.

30

CW.14.10.15

15. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

(i) War Memorial at Groomsport

Alderman Chambers referred to the recent damage inflicted on the War Memorial at Groomsport, and the motivation behind that attack which caused local concerns. Alderman Chambers commended Council Officers and staff who had been involved in the tremendous efforts of cleaning up the War Memorial which actually meant it looked better than ever especially the repainting of the inscription which was a fitting tribute for those who had lost their lives.

On behalf of the Village of Groomsport, Alderman Chambers recorded appreciation to the Council for that restoration work.

NOTED.

(ii) Restoration of War Graves

Councillor Martin sought either a report or permission to open up dialogue with relevant Council Officers on conducting some general restoration work to war graves in the Borough. Councillor Martin outlined that in recently listening to Radio Ulster he had been made aware that a local resident from Newtownards (Ms E Scott) had undertaken to simply put solar lighting on war graves causing the effect of them being lit up at night, which had the approval of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Councillor Martin indicated that he would welcome a conversation regarding the matter of generally tidying up war graves and he undertook to forward the local resident’s contact details to the Director of Community and Wellbeing.

Councillor Menagh advised that he was aware of the work being conducted by the local resident in cemeteries across the Borough. Councillor Roberts suggested that it might be appropriate for Council to facilitate this community initiative.

AGREED:- that Councillor Martin would initially discuss this matter with the Director of Community and Wellbeing.

(Alderman Chambers left the meeting at this stage 10:02pm)

(iii) NI Football Team

Councillor Irvine congratulated the NI Football Team on qualifying for the 2016 European Championships in France, which was the first major football competition since the World Cup in Mexico in 1986. Councillor Irvine highlighted that all credit must go to the Manager, Michael O'Neill and his players on their great achievement and he gave special mention to Bangor's own Josh Magennis who scored his first international goal on his first full start. The supporters commonly known as the green and white army had played a major role throughout the qualifying campaign and the country as a whole could be very proud of the team's success. With qualification

31

CW.14.10.15 secured people's thoughts would turn to the tournament itself and many thousands of supporters were expected to make the trip to France.

Councillor Irvine proposed that the Council writes to the Irish Football Association offering the congratulations of the Borough to the team and that Council also considers ways that the community could come together to celebrate Euro 2016, such as promotion of televised viewings of the Northern Ireland games which could be shown at locations within Ards and North Down.

Councillor Boyle expressed that 8 October 2015 had been a tremendous evening for Irish football as both the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland Football Teams had won their respective matches, however, the ROI football team had yet to qualify for the 2016 European Championships. Councillor Boyle welcomed the qualification that had taken place in Belfast which had added to the feel good factor and celebrations enjoyed by thousands of people around the whole country.

Councillor Menagh highlighted that the NI Football Team had also achieved top of their group in their qualification which was celebrated by over a hundred thousand people across Northern Ireland. Councillor Menagh expressed his gratitude to the Manager and local player, Josh Magennis in attaining this achievement.

Councillor Cooper thanked Councillor Irvine on bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee advising that he echoed the above sentiments. Councillor Cooper outlined that 8 October 2015 had been a great evening for British football and that it was fantastic to see Northern Ireland on the map for positive reasons. Councillor Cooper indicated his support for viewing facilities to be put in place so that everyone including school children would have the opportunity to watch the Championships in France 2016. Councillor Cooper also commended the Manager, Michael O’Neill on the achievement of the NI Football Team, which was made up of footballers with different creeds and backgrounds, playing in such a positive way.

The Chairman (Councillor Armstrong) anticipated that large corporate viewing screens would be made available for the benefit of local people being able to watch the 2016 European Championships.

AGREED:- that a letter of congratulations would be issued from the Council to the Irish Football Association on NI Football Team’s successful qualification for the 2016 European Championships in France.

(iv) ANDBC – Retirement of two Employees

Councillor Adair referred to the retirement of Mr A Ritchie and Mr T Craig advising that both employees had given exemplary service to the legacy Ards Council. Councillor Adair outlined that Mr A Ritchie whom he knew as a very dependable employee especially in emergency circumstances was retiring early on health grounds.

AGREED:- that thanks and appreciation would be offered from the Committee to Mr A Ritchie and Mr T Craig for their exemplary work as Council employees.

32

CW.14.10.15

15.1 EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS

Proposed by Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Cooper and

AGREED that the public/press be excluded during discussion of the undernoted items of confidential business.

15.2 PCSP RATIFIED MINUTES (Appendix VI)

*** IN CONFIDENCE ***

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of Ards and North Down Policing and Community Safety Partnership Minutes of Private Meeting dated Monday 10 August 2015.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Martin, that the above PCSP Minutes be noted.

(Alderman Irvine left the meeting at this stage -10.15pm)

16. LEISURE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DISCUSSIONS UPDATE

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

17. NORTHERN COMMUNITY LEISURE TRUST Q1 (QUARTER 1) REPORT

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

(Councillor Adair left the meeting at this stage – 10:25pm)

18. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

18.1 Multi-use Games Area (MUGA) at Portavogie

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

(Councillor Adair re-entered the meeting at this stage – 10:30pm)

19. RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC/PRESS

Proposed by Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Martin and

33

CW.14.10.15

AGREED that the public/press be re-admitted to the meeting.

20. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 10.40 pm.

34

ITEM 7.3

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Regeneration and Development Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 7.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Councillor T Smith

Aldermen: Girvan (Vice Chairman) M Smith

Councillors: Adair Gilmour Allen Kennedy (7.34pm) Cathcart Menagh Cooper McClean Cummings Roberts Ferguson

Officers: Chief Executive, Head of Regeneration, Head of Economic Development and Tourism and Democratic Services Officer

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Alderman McDowell and Councillors Leslie and Walker.

An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Kennedy

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman (Councillor T Smith) requested any declarations of interest.

No declarations were made.

NOTED.

3. DEPUTATION

3.1 Include Youth (Appendix I)

The Chairman welcomed Mr Ian Donald and Mr Rory Hunter, Include Youth, to the meeting and invited them to make their presentation.

Mr Hunter thanked Members for the opportunity to present on Include Youth’s employability work with young people in the Southern Trust Area. He proceeded to RDC.15.10.15 take Members through a PowerPoint presentation and made the following salient points:-

 Include Youth was an independent NGO actively promoting the rights, best interests of and best practice with disadvantaged and vulnerable children and young people.  Its two main areas of interest were youth justice and the education, employment and training of young people.  The young people it worked with and for included those from socially disadvantaged areas; those who had poor educational experiences; those from a care background; young people that had committed or were at risk of committing crime, misusing drugs or alcohol, undertaking unsafe sexual behaviour or other harmful activities, or of being harmed themselves.  Give & Take: CORE was a twelve month programme for young people aged between 16 and 21 who were referred to Include Youth through social services.  The programme had six components comprising: personal development, supported work experience opportunities, essential skills, vocational training, transitional support during ‘move on’ and mentoring.  Give & Take: One to One was similar to CORE and was only offered to very vulnerable young people on a one to one basis.  Include Youth had just secured funding from Children in Need to carry on its one to on work with young people at risk of child sexual exploitation for a further three years.  Give & Take: Outreach was a group-based employability programme. It was delivered one day per week for twelve weeks to young people aged between 16 and 24. From this programme, young people would gain: NOCN Level 1 Award in Employment, Training and Personal Development; a workplace tour; a vocational qualification and support in their ‘move on’.  Give & Take: Start was an intensive fourteen week community-based employability programme. It was delivered in partnership with North Down and Ards Alternatives (Kilcooley, Rathgill, Comber and Donaghadee). The programme offered personal development, team building activities, mentoring support, employability skills, vocational qualifications, volunteering opportunities and work place tours.  Strive United Youth Pilot was a youth-led pilot employability programme for young people and was designed by young people. Strive supported young people aged between 16 and 24 with cross community and cross cultural opportunities. The programme was coordinated by Include Youth and delivered across four sites: Poleglass Youth Initiatives, Lisburn YMCA, New Start Education Centre and East Belfast Alternatives.

The Chairman thanked Mr Donald and Mr Hunter for their informative presentation and invited questions from Members. The following responses were given:-

 There were several common reasons for the difficulties experienced by some young people. All the young people referred to Include Youth had been profiled and issues of neglect, social and economic deprivation and misuse of drugs or alcohol were key factors. Most of the young people referred had experienced two or three of these difficulties if not all of them.

2

RDC.15.10.15

 Young people could be referred from the age of sixteen, however since many schools did not have the capacity to provide pastoral support, this would be offered to young people of all ages.  The impact of social media on a young persons’ future employability prospects was a concern of Include Youth and it was taking steps to educate and support young people in this matter. Other issues surrounding this factor could arise at any stage while working with a young person and therefore all staff had been trained in social media so that they could challenge and educate the young people in their care. Include Youth was also planning a campaign to target social media including problems such as social grooming and other things.  Include Youth worked closely with Social Services and many referrals would come via this connection. Social workers would refer young people for a variety of reasons and this included those that had fallen away from their family, dropped out of education and were now in residential care. Some young people also believed that they did not have a place in society and therefore an individual programme would be designed for them.  In respect of the outcomes of the programme, all data pertaining to educational attainment and employment attainment was collated and verified and then passed onto the Department of Education and Learning (DEL), which then published this information along with that of other similar programmes.  Include Youth was funded by 30% match funding from Include Youth and 70% funded by the European Social Fund.  The programme was funded for three years from April 2015 with a possible further extension of two years, if Include Youth met its targets and showed that it could expand its work.  There were no restrictions on the communities in Northern Ireland that could avail of Include Youth’s services.  The capacity of Include Youth was twelve young people at a time from each Trust area, which equated to over 400 young people across Northern Ireland.

At this stage in the meeting Councillor Ferguson asked how beneficial it would be to Include Youth for the Council to offer work experience placements.

Mr Donald responded that he would welcome this opportunity since many employers were reluctant to take on unskilled workers and therefore there was a limited number of placements currently available. He continued that the charity sector had been forthcoming in offering placements as had Belfast City Council and he welcomed the opportunity to open up more opportunities.

Councillor Ferguson suggested that the Council explored this option as a way to help some of the struggling young people in the Borough.

In response to a query from Councillor Menagh about the visibility of Include Youth in Newtownards, Mr Donald advised that it operated an office from South Street, Newtownards, adding that Mr Hunter was based there. Mr Hunter stated that outreaches were planned in the Ards area to raise awareness and increase visibility in the community.

The Chairman commended the work of Include Youth and agreed that it would be beneficial for Members to visit the office in Newtownards at a future date.

3

RDC.15.10.15

NOTED.

3.2 Invest NI (Appendix II)

The Chairman welcomed Mr Mark Bleakney, Invest NI, to the meeting and invited him to make his presentation.

(Councillor Kennedy entered the meeting at this stage – 7.34pm)

Mr Bleakney thanked Members for the opportunity to present on its activities in the Ards and North Down Borough (AANDB) and its strategy for local economic development. He proceeded to take Members through a PowerPoint presentation and made the following salient points:-

 The role of Invest NI was to be an effective and efficient delivery body for economic development strategies in the Programme for Government.  It had an integrated offering of financial, capability development and advisory solutions with seven offices across Northern Ireland and thirteen international offices.  Client Teams were structured by industry sector and supported by specialists in a wide range of business disciplines.  Invest NI’s approach included investment in: research and development; export and trade; strategy and innovation; skills and training; process development; technology uptake; sustainable development and property solutions.  Its approach also included entrepreneurship/new start-ups, existing client company growth and new inward investment  Invest NI offered a range of assistance to businesses including starting a business, growing a business, maximising efficiencies, product development and international trade and investment.  Customers were segmented so as to tailor the support package.  Invest NI activity for the Ards and North Down area for 2010/11 to 2014/15 included:  1,156 offers of support totalling £15.66m of assistance, contributing towards £82.33m of investment  35 offers of research and development support totalling £2.38m of assistance, contributing towards £8.59m of investment  47 offers for skills development support totalling £0.50m of assistance, contributing towards £1.22m of investment  1,353 new jobs promoted (including Regional Start Initiative Jobs); 83 jobs safeguarded.  Mr Bleakney then detailed the many local economic development programmes and initiatives taking place in Ards and North Down.  Local economic development going forward included:  Community Planning – Strategic Partnership and Economic Well-being Working Group  ERDF Investment for Growth and Job Programme for NI – enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs  Mainstream assistance to businesses

4

RDC.15.10.15

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

 The Chairman queried why the Ards and North Down Borough was at the bottom of the investment list; and why new large businesses located in Belfast as opposed to Newtownards, for example. In response, Mr Bleakney advised that Boroughs could not be compared as each had areas with different strengths and weaknesses, for example manufacturing, tourism and other things. He added that Invest NI was keen to work with the Council in developing more areas. He further stated that the majority of foreign investments that come to Northern Ireland, settled in Belfast and this was due to a number of reasons; for example, technical or workforces requirements perhaps requiring a minimum urban population of 300,000-400,000. He added that the companies decided where they wished to be based and as previously stated, some had exacting requirements.  Mr Bleakney advised that the focus of the Ards and North Down Borough should be on specific types of investment, rather than to try to compete within Northern Ireland it should try to find something new.  Councillor Cathcart commented that the Ards and North Down Borough compared unfavourably to other areas and was always bottom; adding that the Council should not ignore this. He asked why the AANDB had been last for the previous five years and what could Invest NI do. He recognised that it was a partnership and there was a need to address the specific issues of this Borough. In response Mr Bleakney confirmed that one area should not be chosen over another as this was a regional brief. He also cautioned against comparing regions as each area had its own strengths and weaknesses. He advised assessing what strengths and assets existing in the area that could be developed and if there was a niche that could be explored to work with and develop.  He stated that areas did not have weaknesses as such, just that they were different, for example, an older population, better educated, higher earners and other things. He advised that workers/residents in this Borough earned well above the Northern Ireland average and therefore the Borough should be looking to bring in high end jobs, rather than for example, factories. He added the unemployment figure for the Borough was down to 3%.  Mr Bleakney challenged Members to think about what the collective assets of the area were and how these could be promoted to citizen and further beyond. Councillor Cummings remarked that the Borough had a thriving creative and agri-foods sector which had been broadly marketed in conjunction with the council.  Alderman Girvan commented that the agri-food and drink industry was growing, such as the increase in micro-breweries and many of these smaller businesses were keen to connect with larger establishments such as hotels. She would like to see the Borough hosting an international drinks conference, involving Ulster artisans and wondered whether this could be possible. She also asked when large conferences came to Belfast, instead of sign posting visitors just to the North Coast, could a tourism package for this Bo4ough be developed to draw visitors here.

5

RDC.15.10.15

 Mr Bleakney concurred that the visitor experience was a core attribute of the Borough.  Councillor Adair queried how Invest NI encouraged businesses to approach it for help. He stated that there were purpose built place in Portavogie, for example for the fishing industry, which were now empty and neglected but could be reinvented. He asked how businesses could be encouraged to invest in somewhere like Portavogie. In response, Mr Bleakney advised that campaigns had been run to encourage this.  In response to a query from Councillor McClean, Mr Bleakney confirmed that Invest NI did not have a political imperative to pick one area over another.

4. MINUTES OF TOWN STEERING GROUPS

4.1 Holywood Town Steering Group dated 10 September 2015 (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Allen, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the minutes be noted.

4.2 Donaghadee Town Steering Group dated 14 September 2015 (Appendix IV)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Allen, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the minutes be noted.

4.3 Comber Town Steering Group dated 24 September 2015 (Appendix V)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Allen, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the minutes be noted.

4.4 Holywood Town Steering Group dated 2 October 2015 (Appendix VI)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Allen, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the minutes be noted.

5. THE OLD GUNPOWDER STORE, DONAGHADEE MOAT

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 28 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that Ards and North Down Borough Council, through the Donaghadee Town Steering Group, had agreed to appoint a suitably qualified and experienced Architect-led consultancy team with a view to developing design proposals for the repair and re-use of The Old Gunpowder Store, and associated environmental improvements at Donaghadee Moat. The

6

RDC.15.10.15

Architect-led team would provide architectural services; structural engineering services; mechanical and electrical engineering services; quantity surveying services; and construction, and design and management services (CDM).

The scheme was part of the wider Donaghadee Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and administered by Ards and North Down Borough Council. As owner of The Old Gunpowder Store, the Council was eligible to apply for funding through the Donaghadee Townscape Heritage Initiative, in addition to listed building grant and other potential match funding (subject to availability).

The Architect was to be appointed to undertake RIBA Work Stages 0-7, on a percentage fee basis, with the option to terminate the appointment at any Stage should Council decide not to proceed with the scheme.

The Architect-led team of consultants would initially undertake detailed measured and condition surveys of the building in order to establish the condition of the building and the estimated cost of repairs. The appointed Architect would also at this stage provide an options appraisal examining the potential for establishing a new use for the building and the additional costs for undertaking such works for presentation to, the Council. Based on the total estimated development costs, the THI Project Officer would undertake a provisional THI grant assessment and advise the Council accordingly on the likely THI grant available. Subject to Council agreement, applications for statutory consents for the favoured option would be prepared and submitted on behalf of the Council, by the appointed Consultants. Subject to obtaining statutory consents and further Council approval, the appointed Architect-led team would develop detailed working drawings and administer the tendering process, in accordance with Public Sector Tendering requirements. Subject to the Council appointing the Building Contractor, the appointed Architect would administer the Building Contract and oversee the building works on site through to completion.

From a select short-list of four Architects, who had been invited to submit fee quotations, two respondents had submitted fee quotation proposals prior to the closing date of 12 noon on 11 September 2015.

An assessment panel consisting of the following individuals had met to assess the quotations:

 Regeneration Officer  THI Project Officer  Assistant Regeneration Officer

Stage One – Selection Criteria

Standards of Experience: Pass/Fail

Respondents had to demonstrate that they met the required standard of experience.

Definition of Scoring

7

RDC.15.10.15

Respondents had been requested to submit details of three recent schemes completed within the past three years which demonstrated that the Architect-led team met the required level of experience of having worked on schemes of a similar nature, scale and complexity and which demonstrated previous experience of working with the other members of the Architect–led team.

Scoring Indicator

Pass Where details had been provided of three similar projects to that of The Old Gunpowder Store which had been undertaken by the lead Architect within the past three years, which demonstrated experience of working on heritage focussed projects and of working with other members of the team.

Fail Where details had not been provided of three similar projects to that of The Old Gunpowder Store which had been undertaken by the lead Architect within the past three years, or if provided the examples failed to demonstrate experience of working on heritage focussed projects and of working with other members of the team.

Standards of Expertise: Pass/Fail

Respondents must demonstrate that they meet the required standard of expertise.

Definition of Scoring

Respondents had been requested to submit CVs of all team members to demonstrate an expertise in their respective fields and the lead Architect having an expertise in building conservation and the repair and re-use of historic buildings. The Architect assigned to lead the team of consultants must have been AABC Conservation Accredited (or similar and equivalent) or have been awarded the RSUA Diploma in Historic Building Conservation.

Scoring Indicator

Pass Where CVs had been provided which demonstrated that all team members met the required standard of expertise and the Architect assigned to lead the team of consultants was AABC Conservation Accredited (or similar and equivalent) or had been awarded the DSUA Diploma in Historic Building Conservation.

Fail Where CVs had not been provided or if provided failed to demonstrate that all team members met the required standard of expertise. The Architect assigned to lead the team of consultants was not AABC Conservation Accredited (or similar and equivalent) and had not been awarded the DSUA Diploma in Historic Building Conservation.

8

RDC.15.10.15

Both respondents had met the minimum standards of experience and expertise required and proceeded to stage two.

Stage Two – Award Criteria

At Stage 2 submissions had been evaluated on a 50/50, Quality/Cost ratio. Quality had been assessed on the basis of the submission of a Methodology statement and detailed Programme. Cost had been assessed on the basis of the lowest percentage fee (estimated/final development cost) and the fee quotation falling within budget (10%).

Following detailed assessment across the quality and cost criteria the final score matrix was as below:

Name of Company Quality Score Cost Score Total Score/Rank

Alastair Coey Architects 50 (100%) 50 (100%) 100 (1st) ATP Architects 35 (70%) 45 (90%) 80 (2nd)

Wining submission: Alastair Coey Architects Percentage Fee: 9.1% (of the estimated/final development cost)

NOTE: the Heritage Lottery Fund had set a maximum percentage fee of 10% for THI eligible professional fees; therefore, if the Council decided to proceed with the scheme to completion, all consultant fees expended would be THI grant eligible.

RECOMMENDED that:-

1. The Council awards the contract to Alastair Coey Architects at the percentage fee of 9.1% (of the estimated/final development cost).

2. Based on the estimated development cost (£150,000-£175,000), stage payment breakdown and outline programme provided by Alastair Coey Architects, the consultant fee will not exceed £5,000 for the current financial year (30% stage payment for RIBA Work Stages 0-3). This can be met from current departmental budgets. The Council may terminate the appointment at any Stage, should it decide not to proceed with the scheme, without incurring a financial penalty from the consultants.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Councillor Roberts, that the recommendation be adopted.

6. NORTHERN IRELAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2014-2020 – PROGRESS REPORT

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 30 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) acted as the managing authority for the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme and was responsible for its

9

RDC.15.10.15 implementation. The Rural Development Programme was jointly funded through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and DARD.

DARD had approved the formation of the Ards and North Down Local Action Group (LAG). This comprised of a Board of Directors with 20 members (9 Councillors and 11 Social Partners) and a wider LAG of 90 members. The Group had to be formed into a Limited Company and the Board had agreed that it would be known as Ards and North Down Rural Partnership Ltd. Draft Articles of Association had been prepared in consultation with the Council’s Solicitor and presented to the Board for their consideration. It was envisaged that these would be approved at the next Board meeting which was due to take place on 19 October 2015.

The Council had agreed at its meeting the previous month to accept the LEADER Animation Service Level Agreement issued by DARD. Therefore, DARD had issued an invitation, including a strategy template and guidance notes, to the Ards and North Down Rural Partnership to complete an Interim Rural Development Strategy by 31 December 2015. A consultant had been appointed to undertake a detailed assessment of rural needs and the strategy development. This would include a series of public engagement events across the rural Borough during October of which members would be notified.

The completed Interim Local Rural Development Strategy would provide the framework for the allocation of £3.15million in project funding within the rural area. Under this programme the following were areas that could be considered for funding:

 Rural Business Investment Scheme  Rural Basic Services Scheme  Rural Broadband Scheme  Village Renewal Scheme  LEADER Co-operation Scheme

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the report.

Rising in support, Councillor Adair commented that the programme would make a valuable difference to rural areas and he encouraged Members to support the planned series of consultation events across the Borough.

The Head of Regeneration confirmed that the public engagement events were integral to the new strategy and it was hoped that large numbers of citizens would get involved in the consultation process, which would assist in developing a strong and robust strategy.

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

7. CRAFT DEVELOPMENT SERVICE – EVENTS UPDATE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 30 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that the Craft Development Service had delivered a robust programme of initiatives and events in

10

RDC.15.10.15 the period April – August 2015. These initiatives and events had, as their primary focus, been about the continued promotion of craft as a key economic driver and the development of the Borough as a creative region.

Ards Crafts, the Council’s retail Craft and Design Centre maintained its place as one of Northern Ireland’s leading craft centres. It’s “Meet the Maker” programme of exhibitions and workshops provided additional profiling for new local craft businesses as well as attracting additional footfall to the Centre. Resulting visitor numbers to the Centre in the period April – August 2015 had been 16.8k with the number of local businesses supported in the Centre currently around 49.

The Creative Peninsula event in August remained as one of Northern Ireland’s leading Craft events, being a key ‘highlight’ of Craft Northern Ireland’s August Craft Month event. Events had taken place during the first week of August, throughout the Borough, with visitor numbers in excess of 20k. Craft Northern Ireland’s Media report indicated the highest weekly value of AVE for their month long event being generated in the week of Creative Peninsula (3–10 August) with significant exposure of local craft businesses, including Project 24.

Project 24’s programme of events had continued to create a vibe for Queen’s Parade with visitor numbers in excess of 25k in the period April – August 2015. Highlights had included Culture Day with 6k visitors and Easter events, 7k visitors.

Upcoming autumn events would focus on income generation for the sector, including the Third annual Creative Peninsula Christmas Craft Fayre, from 3–5 December 2015. The event took place in Ards Arts Centre with over 27 local professional Craftspeople participating and coinciding with Small Biz Saturday UK. Supplementary selling events were planned for The Hub at Project 24 including Craft in the Hub on 21 November and 19 December 2015.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the report.

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

8. TOURISM EVENTS GRANTS FUND 2015/16

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 25 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning providing an update on the tourism events grants fund 2015/16.

Background

In November 2014, the Shadow Council had approved a new Tourism Events Grants Policy for Ards and North Down Borough Council. The Tourism Events Grants programme had been advertised in December 2014 and the tourism unit had delivered a workshop to facilitate the promotion of the programme during the same month. The application process had closed in January, with 25 applications. The budget attached had been £76,000 and the programme had been oversubscribed resulting in a 13.7 % reduction in all grants offered. Due to a combination of

11

RDC.15.10.15 withdrawals and duplicate applications, 21 applications had completed the process and had now either processed their full application, were in the process of evaluation, or the event had yet to happen. To date, only three applications had completed the full process, due to the calendar order of the events. The last grant aided event was due to take place in December 2015.

It had been agreed that a review would be undertaken after one year but as the programme was mid-cycle, a full evaluation was not possible at this time. However the Tourism Manager, along with members of the tourism team had reviewed the delivery of the grant programme including its marketing, liaison with potential applicants, communication with successful applicants, the assessment process and overall delivery of the programme to date.

Following this review the following were suggested additional requirements to further include within the application process:

Fund 1 – £ 500 - £3000 and Fund 2 – £3001 - £10000

 Applicants must explicitly define, what their event could offer to the visitor, relevant to the scale of the event, to determine if the application could proceed to the full assessment stage.  The proposed event should not duplicate/conflict with any other Council organised/programmed event.  The applicant should demonstrate additional sources of funds, to deliver their event and what these funds would be attributed to.  If the event had been previously supported by Ards and North Down Borough Council in 2015/16, through the Tourism Events Grants Fund, the applicant must demonstrate further innovation in their programming to attract additional visitors.  If the applicant was applying to/already in receipt of funding from another Council department, they had to clearly demonstrate that no duplication in the use of these streams of funding would occur in the delivery of the event.  The grant to be awarded would be calculated on the existing measurement tools in relation to visitor numbers, bed nights and event duration. However, it was recommended that the applicant would be measured on specific publicity terms and conditions and the delivery of those, rather than the PR monetary value to attain their self-assessed grant value. The benefit to the Council was that this would ensure adherence to the publicity terms and conditions i.e. ensuring the event acknowledged the Council’s support, plus making the process simpler for the applicant. The PR monetary value, pre and post event would continue to be evaluated.

The following were the suggested amendments to be adopted regarding the terms and conditions of the programme:

Fund 1 – £ 500 - £3000 and Fund 2 – £3001 - £10000

 Applicants would be informed that unless all terms and conditions were met by the relevant deadlines, the Council had the right to withdrawn or reduce the grant accordingly.

12

RDC.15.10.15

 2014/2015 had been the pilot year of this new application process. Following the screening exercise and further agreed by the Council in January 2015, it had been suggested that any event availing of these funds, may only receive funding for a maximum of three years. This was to encourage the applicants to make the event self-sustainable and not to be solely reliant on Council funding. It was recommended that this intention be communicated to applicants in this year’s promotion of the process and was applied to Fund 1 and Fund 2 as year one from 2017/18 onwards.

The Tourism Manager and Events Officer would welcome the opportunity to work with organisations in 2016/2017, to encourage more innovation and visitor offering within their events, prior to implementing this condition.

The Tourism Manager was a member of the pan Council Event Grants Working Group and would work to incorporate any agreed processes or terms and conditions, which may be applied to all Council grants. The first meeting of this group would take place in October 2015.

Advertising

The Tourism Events Grant Fund would be advertised in November 2015 with a workshop for potential applicants following in December/January 2016. The Fund would be advertised for events taking place in the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.

Budget

The grant fund had been oversubscribed the previous year totalling £88,065. However, each successful applicant had been able to receive a grant within the allocated event grant budget of £76,000. Applications that had remained within the process, currently totalled £67,324. It was envisaged that the budget remained at £76,000 for year 2016/17.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the following:

1. The above additional requirements to the application process, for the Tourism Events Grants Fund, to take effect from 1 April 2016.

2. The amendments to the terms and conditions of the Tourism Events Grants Fund, to take effect from 1 April 2016.

3. The timeline for advertising and promotion of the Tourism Events Grants Fund as above.

4. The budget of £76,000 for tourism events grant for year 2016/17 subject to the rate setting process.

13

RDC.15.10.15

Councillor Roberts queried if events would cease after receiving the maximum three years funding.

In response, the Head of Economic Development and Tourism clarified that the purpose of the financial support was to develop the event and give it time to become self-sustaining. In addition to financial support, applicants could avail of office support, workshops, advice and other things. It was then down to the applicant to show additionality or expansion of the event.

Councillor Kennedy expressed concern that the three year timescale was a short amount of time to make an event self-sustaining. He believed a more proactive approach was required from Council officers and that the Council should do all it could to ensure the event had the best chance of success. In response, the Head of Economic Development and Tourism stated that officers were always available to offer support, however the restricted resources meant that they could not be involved in the events.

In response to another query from Councillor Kennedy the Head of Economic Development and Tourism clarified that recipients of funding were not obliged to attend the workshops.

The Head of Regeneration stated that each organisation had different requirements and different methods and therefore officers kept them ‘on the long arm’ so that they could go forward and develop their own strategy including how to make the event self-sustainable. Only when it appeared the event would not be self-sustaining would an officer prompt the applicant that changes were required.

Councillor Kennedy commented that the Council had an obligation to ratepayers to ensure that funds were spent in an optimum way and therefore he was puzzled that organisations were not encouraged more to attend the Council’s workshops, since the Council would be answerable if the event failed after three years. In response, the Head of Economic Development and Tourism advised that in the first instance, applicants underwent a rigorous application process. She continued that following this, there was a process of education, support and workshop in terms of running a successful event.

In response to a query from the Chairman, the Head of Economic Development and Tourism advised that after the three year term an applicant could re-apply for further funding and this would be a decision for the Council.

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

9. THEATRE PROVISION FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT (Appendix VII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 24 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing the theatre provision feasibility study report and options.

14

RDC.15.10.15

RECOMMENDED that the results of the feasibility study be noted and that the proposal for Option 3 be adopted to address the need for theatre provision in Bangor.

Alderman Smith queried the accuracy of the report. She stated that the Studio Theatre (which provided studio and theatre space) and was used by the Bangor Drama Club, had a 75 seat capacity and The Space at SERC had a 150 seat capacity and therefore she did not believe an accurate picture of the existing provision had been given. She also commented that Option 3 was extremely vague in its description of what was being proposed in terms of a multi-purpose building, and there was scant detail provided on the options, and therefore not enough to make a decision.

(Alderman Girvan left the meeting at this stage – 8.20pm)

The Head of Economic Development and Tourism stated that the feasibility study addressed theatre provision in its own right as it had to be ascertained whether there was a separate requirement for a theatre to what could go into the development at Queen’s Parade i.e. the ‘Destination’ building. She continued that Option 3 formed part of the Borough wide strategy to see if it was feasible as it had to fit in with what was currently available, considering the close proximity to Belfast and the cost of maintaining such a building. She added that the matter of Queen’s Parade would be dealt with separately. She further stated that Option 3 looked at what provision currently existed in the Borough and the feasibility study had deemed that the current offerings sufficed in terms of the current market conditions, available number of seats and demand. She stated that in the first instance it had to be established if the existing provision fitted the demand and added that the average individual visited the theatre once a year and the shows that came to Belfast were unlikely to come to Bangor.

The Head of Regeneration reminded those Members that had been at the recent workshop that the consultant from Venturei Network had concluded that a stand- alone theatre was not feasible, being costly to the Council, and it would be more advantageous in his view to work together with the wider providers.

(Alderman Girvan entered the meeting at this stage – 8.25pm)

Councillor Menagh expressed the view that the current provision was satisfactory and it was not feasible to have a stand-alone theatre at Queen’s Parade.

Councillor McClean echoed the comments of Alderman Smith that the report was inaccurate in terms of the number of seats at SERC. He believed there was a maximum of 180 seats at SERC, not 350 as detailed in the report, and as such it had a different offering in terms of viability, and while the SERC theatre was an excellent facility, it was a separate issue. He reiterated that the report was incorrect and that while SERC offered a great facility, it was not a destination venue. He believed this inaccuracy had to have a bearing on the Council’s decision and called for the report to be corrected. He also believed the recommendation was quite bland in contrast to the other more detailed options. and that what was described would be done anyway. He did not believe there was a purpose in carrying out a consultation with

15

RDC.15.10.15 other groups if the option to build something at Queen’s Parade had already been ruled out. He called for further talks to be held within six months to explore other options. He reiterated that there were only 180 seats in SERC and not 350 as reported and as such the Borough did not currently have a viable theatre.

In response the Head of Economic Development and Tourism advised that Option 3 was concerned with seeing what could be offered through existing services including factors such as sustainability, the costs of maintaining the building and other things. She continued that there was a difference between the potential and the actual demand and in this context could theatre provision be met with existing services.

Councillor McClean proposed that the report be amended to note the reduced seating provision at SERC. The Chairman advised he could not accept the amendment as this would negate Option 3.

The Head of Regeneration stated that the DSD hoped to appoint a consultant to give a brief to the developer at Queen’s Parade. He reiterated that the planning permission for Queen’s Parade was for a major mixed use regeneration proposal part of which included a flexible ‘Destination’ or ‘Place’ building, and therefore a theatre was only one possible option for this building. He continued that the DSD was putting pressure on the Council to make a decision in respect of this and had given a deadline of March 2016.

At this stage in the meeting, the Chief Executive spoke to the report advising that the original report had been commissioned by legacy North Down Borough Council.

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

Continuing, the Chief Executive stated that Option 3 had been recommended since there had been no case to provide a significant theatre and it looked at a wider strategy, therefore the option of a full size theatre built in the Borough by the Council was not included in the proposal. Furthermore, he reported that the restrictive timeframe was also a factor that had to be considered, adding that the Council had to determine how it saw the place developing and the report had ? to inform that process.

Councillor McClean stated that he was not demanding that a theatre be built at Queen’s Parade, just that the recommendation to adopt a venture that involved the Council working with a 350 seater theatre did not exist. He continued that the question remained about what to do with the ‘Destination’ building and the Council had to be mindful that if it went with Option 3 that the information guiding this option was inaccurate and would have a material impact on the decision making process.

The Chairman commented that the report had made clear that a Council built theatre would not be sustainable.

Councillor Cathcart queried whether the remit of Option 3 for a wider strategic approach was to support existing facilities or a new facility. He also asked what would happen in the event that the existing provision did not meet the demand. In response the Head of Economic Development and Tourism advised that Option 3

16

RDC.15.10.15 was not concerned with facilities as such, rather that it was ascertaining if the need for a theatre could be serviced with an integrated approach across the Borough. She continued that given factors such as cost, profit, sustainability and the current number of people visiting a theatre, research had shown there was no requirement for a theatre of that size.

Rising in support of the recommendation, Councillor Roberts stated that while he appreciated the disappointment that there would be no theatre built at Queen’s Parade, Members’ had to accept that it was not viable for several reasons including the high costs involved and the local competition such as the Waterfront and Opera House in Belfast.

Alderman Girvan commented that there could be grants available outside of the Council. She continued she was astounded at the amount of money that had already been poured into sustaining facilities such as the Lyric Theatre (£500,000) and the Ulster Orchestra (£1.2m). She expressed the view that the facility at Queen’s Parade had to be one that would attract a variety of events as theatres were expensive to run and maintain and Bangor’s proximity to Belfast would be problematic in terms of attracting people to events here.

Councillor Ferguson proposed that the matter be deferred to allow the report to be amended with the correct figures for theatre seating.

At this stage a vote was taken on the original proposal to adopt Option 3.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Councillor Roberts, with 9 voting For and 4 voting Against, that the recommendation be adopted.

10. YEAR OF FOOD 2016

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 28 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning reminding Members that 2016 had been designated as the Year of Food by Tourism NI.

1. The marketing material for Tourism NI had been produced, featuring Comber Earlies on the front cover.

Officers were currently working with Tourism NI and Food NI and internally with Environmental Services to create a programme of events including food events, food trails and tastings and business development initiatives to support the growth of the sector and to promote the food sector across the borough. These initiatives would tie in with the Food NI Theme Calendar for 2016 as below and would take advantage of and celebrate the fantastic food offering across the borough to lay the foundations for Ards and North Down becoming known as the premier destination to experience food excellence in Northern Ireland.

January February March April Breakfast Month Love Local Heritage Brewing and Distilling

17

RDC.15.10.15

May June July August Landscapes and Love Dairy Seas, Rivers and Love NI Meat Places – Where does Loughs our food come from?

September October November December Bread and Baking Celebrating Harvest Legacy, Learn to… Christmas, Premium Foods, Celebration

2. Ards and North Down Borough Council (AND) was in a position to maximise the Tourism, Economic and Regeneration opportunities in Agri food and therefore intended to widen the scope provided by 2016 Year of Food.

To inform the AND plan the Economic Development and Tourism team was holding a series of focus groups across the Borough during October 2015. The aim was to listen to the needs of the sector ranging from producers, service providers and hospitality and catering outlets and to build a programme which laid the foundation for the food sector as a key driver and pillar of the Council’s strategy going forward.

A planned programme of support and events which would tie in with the Tourism events plan for 2016 would be created and presented to the Council in November 2015.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the report.

(Councillor Gilmour left the meeting at this stage 8.40pm)

In response to a query from Councillor Cummings about the short time frame, the Head of Economic Development and Tourism advised that the timescale was too short to be ready for January One, however this would be year one of a four year strategy and therefore would give the Council ample time to develop a programme of events and she was confident that the Council would be able to get the scheme off the ground. She continued that a report would be brought to the Committee in due course detailing the feedback from the various focus groups.

(Councillor Cooper left the meeting at this stage – 8.41pm)

The Head of Economic Development and Tourism further stated that specific events would be chosen and carried out really well. She added that while the Council itself could not do something every year, it was hoped to have businesses signed up for every month of the programme and would use the media to promote each event.

(Councillors Cooper and Gilmour entered the meeting at this stage – 8.42pm)

Rising in support, Councillor Adair commented that it was a fantastic initiative covering a broad spectrum of themes to harvest the full tourism potential. He continued that the Borough offered top restaurants and excellent dairy and fish

18

RDC.15.10.15 products and he hoped the programme would revive the fish places in Portavogie. He was delighted to see the Council taking the lead in this initiative.

In response to a query from Councillor Cathcart the Head of Economic Development and Tourism advised that producers and businesses from both the Borough and further afield would be invited to be involved so that each month could be populated with what made sense and fitted the theme/season.

Councillor Roberts asked if there would be organic and vegetarian elements included in the programme.

(Councillor Cathcart left the meeting at this stage – 8.46pm)

In response the Head of Economic Development and Tourism advised that they were still at the planning stage and nothing was set in stone yet. She continued that it was planned to keep the schedule flexible and therefore organics and vegetarian options could be included in the calendar.

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

(Councillor Cathcart entered the meeting at this stage – 8.49pm)

11. CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PRODUCT UPDATE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 15 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning giving an update on the Christian Heritage Product.

Columban Way AGM Update

Background

In 2014 North Down Borough Council had signed up to the establishment of “The Columban Way” along with Bobbio, Italy and Luxeuil, France. The aim was to develop spiritual, cultural, tourism and economic ties with areas where Columbanus had established settlements, after departing from Bangor Abbey in the sixth century. As part of this agreement, an AGM was held annually, along with additional events taking place to commemorate St Columbanus. This year the AGM had been held in Bobbio, Italy on 29 August 2015.

AGM Summary

Statutes

Changes had been made to the statutes to allow for a simplification in the holding of regular co-ordinating meetings. This had included physical representation at meetings, which would be no longer necessary through the utilisation of technology. Attendance would still be required at the AGM. Also, the differing format of the Council’s Mayoral structures, for example serving a single year term, had been

19

RDC.15.10.15 agreed to be taken into account and be reflected in the Statutes. Other items in the statues, though of less significance, which would need to be amended during year one of the agreement, had been agreed to be detailed and tabled for change at a subsequent Special AGM held via Skype in November 2015. It had been proposed that the representatives who attended the August AGM would represent Ards and North Down Borough Council on this Skype call.

Membership

It had been agreed that a national contact point structure, to develop membership, was to be set up. The Tourism Development Officer with Ards and North Down Borough Council had been nominated as the contact for NI and ROI. The purpose of this was to develop relationships with other Columbanus areas, to encourage their participation in the Columban Way.

It had been requested that additional groups be seconded to the co-ordinating committee, to help spread workloads and develop the reach of the Columban Way. It had been further agreed that from 2016 “Individual Memberships” would be created at a cost of only €5. This was to allow for non-group affiliated members to join and help promote the work of the Way. These members would be regarded as supportive / associate members with no voting rights. A proposal from Ards and North Down Borough Council that “Honorary Life Memberships” should be made part of the statutes of membership had been accepted. Each area could nominate a maximum of two persons per AGM. This would be in recognition of work in the promotion of Columbanus and / or the areas local Christian Heritage.

Communication / Marketing

It had been agreed this would be progressed by the three tourism officers from each area, independent of the co-ordinating group, who would bring proposals to the November meeting, to include a report on the development and establishment of a six month and twelve month communication plan.

European Cultural Routes Application

A representative from Luxembourg had attended the meeting to discuss the future application and explained the areas which needed to be addressed to ensure a successful application in 2016.

Scientific Committee

The establishment of this Committee was an integral criterion for the European Routes Application. The request had been made, by the other members of the Columban Way Committee, that Ards and North Down Borough Council would follow up on the establishment of the Committee, by seeking commitment from other partners. This had been due to the Tourism Development Officer already having formulated a number of international academic contacts who may form the membership.

Product development

20

RDC.15.10.15

The projects and initiatives delivered by Ards and North Down Borough Council to date and as presented (as detailed below under Heritage Lottery update) had been noted as exemplary, and were regarded as the type of projects which should be delivered by other members, to ensure progress towards the Route application.

Consultants who were currently employed by the group to assist with the Route application had been tasked to produce a breakdown of the areas of need and which organisation(s) had to complete/action these for the November meeting. In addition, each area was to provide a list of recent activity that could be replicated internationally to increase similar branded activities.

Budget

It had been agreed that a more detailed breakdown of the budget would be provided on a quarterly basis, detailing specific income and expenditure and including future projected spend where known.

Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) Projects Update

Background

In October 2014, it had been reported to North Down Borough Council that the Tourism unit had submitted an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund for a number of projects valued at £52,000, with a £40,000 contribution coming from HLF. This application had been for the development of Columbanus and Bangor Christian Heritage. These projects would be fully complete by the end of November 2015 which marked the 1400th anniversary of the passing of St Columbanus. The range of projects had included tourism, education, exhibitions, events, music and community related products. The following were a summary of the projects which had been fully completed.

Mobile App and Trail

Production of an audio / pictorial Mobile App of Bangor’s Christian Heritage sites included within a 5km trail. The free App (downloadable from the App store or Google Play by search Bangor Christian Heritage) took the user along the tour with audio at each of the nine sites along with images. The trail also included interpretational and directional signage at each site and a hard copy map (10,000 print) to direct the non-app user.

Tour guide training

Approximately fifteen volunteers from the Friends of St Columbanus community had successfully completed training, delivered by a Blue Badge Guide, of the town’s Christian Heritage sites and 5km trail. To date they had guided over 300 visitors at the various sites since June 2015.

Exhibitions

21

RDC.15.10.15

Two exhibitions had been funded. The first “The Bell Tolls for Thee”, saw the Bangor Bell joined by two other similar Bells, The Cashel and Lough Lene, together for the first time since they were created in the ninth century. The exhibition, held May-June 2015 in North Down Museum, had welcomed over 13,800 visitors to the museum in that period. The exhibition then moved to the Hunt Museum in Limerick. The second exhibition, a portable six panel “pop-up” exhibition (containing content of the Christian Heritage of the Borough) had been produced. This had been passed to the Friends of Columbanus Bangor group for its use primarily, and it was now responsible for the staging of the panels and providing talks on the history at sites across the Borough or further afield. To date, the exhibition had been displayed at four sites (including libraries around the borough) since May 2015 and there was a committed exhibition planned until the end of November 2015.

Music Project

A CD had been produced to promote this part of shared culture, by the provision of music, from those areas where Columbanus had established settlements. There had been pieces from five nations produced for the CD. The development of the music exchanged also saw the local Ards Comhaltas traditional music group perform in Bobbio in August 2015. It was hoped that acts from Europe would visit Ards and North Down Borough Council in 2016, to participate in June’s Columbanus Cross Community Folk Festival.

Education

This project had seen two projects produced, to aid the teaching of the local Christian Heritage product. This had been aimed at a Primary level where it was a curriculum requirement for pupils to study their local history. After consultation with local teachers, the first project developed had been a four page comic. This had told the story of the early Pagan times, through St Patrick and focused on Columbanus and his travels through Europe. A print run had been produced (10,000) to cover all primary schools within the new Borough along with other Church and community groups and other things. The second part of the education project had involved the creation of a “learning box”. This included items that could travel to schools to assist in the delivery of the education package of local Christian Heritage, for example monks’ robes, a scale model of the Bangor Bell, writing tools and other things.

Events

Events would take place from 20-22 November 2015. Events organised by the Friends of St Columbanus Bangor would include concerts, a performance including poetry and music and an ecumenical service. Activities would also be run by Ards and North Down Borough Council, which would include historic talks and children’s story telling sessions on Saturday, 21November 2015.

ESRI Maps Make Sense Challenge 2015

ICT and Tourism had recently submitted a collaborative project “St Columbanus c543-615AD” in the current year’s Challenge competition. The project tracked the travels of Columbanus across Europe and featured information and imagery on each

22

RDC.15.10.15 stop of the journey and a number of audio / video pieces detailing the history of the specific area.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the report.

Councillor Kennedy stressed the importance of identifying the strengths of the Borough and to market these as a tourism product. He proceeded to give a brief history in respect of Columbanus and the settlements in Scotland and the North of Ireland. He then asked how the initiative would be funded.

In response the Head of Economic Development and Tourism advised that the Council had a budget for expenditure and since the number of projects had been valued at £52,000 and a £40,000 contribution was coming from the HLF, the Council would have to contribute £12,000 from the available funds. She added that other EU funding streams were being explored.

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

12. “OUT AND ABOUT” PANEL AT THE WARREN, CLOUGHEY (Appendix VIII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 14 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that the Strangford Lough and Lecale Partnership (SLLP) had offered funds from the partnership’s Heritage Lottery Fund programme for an “Out and About” information panel at Cloughey. The panel design would be similar to the one shown attached, at Portavogie, and compatible with the approved tourism branding for the Destination Strangford Lough region of the Borough. The logos in the Cloughey panel would be replaced by the HLF, SLLP and AND logos.

SLLP’s formal remit was for the Strangford and Lecale Area of Natural Beauty (AONB), but informally this had extended to Areas of Special Scientific interest (ASSI) also, of which the Warren at Cloughey was one. The proposed panel would mainly feature species identification (flora and fauna) according to season and guidance on sensitive use of the environment. The ‘Out and About’ panels were designed to blend into the landscape, being horizontal with minimal housing and colours sympathetic to their background.

SLLP had consulted with Cloughey and District Community Association who were in favour of the panel and had proposed a location close to the play park. There were no environmental issues with establishing the panel at that location.

No financial contribution was sought from the Council.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the information panel at Cloughey.

Rising in support Councillor Adair commented that the information panels installed in Portavogie had been very successful and had connected the harbour to the village centre and therefore made a real difference to the village. He continued that the

23

RDC.15.10.15 panels would complement the work of the Cloughey and District Community Association.

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

(Alderman Smith and Councillor Cathcart declared an interest in Item 13 as members of North Down Development Organisation and left the meeting at this stage – 8.55pm)

13. EXPLORING ENTERPRISE 3 PROGRAMME

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 30 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing the Exploring Enterprise 3 Programme.

Background

Ards and North Down Borough Council had been approached by Ards Business Centre and North Down Development Organisation (NDDO) in order to seek match funding to proceed with a successful European Social Fund Programme application called the Exploring Enterprise 3 Programme.

The Exploring Enterprise 3 Programme was a pre-start enterprise programme with the objective of increasing awareness and offering training and development to potential entrepreneurs from disadvantaged communities and under-represented groups.

Participants did not need to have a specific business idea to join as the programme provided an insight into starting a business while allowing participants to work towards achieving a qualification. On successful completion of the CCEA accredited training course, participants would be awarded the Level I in Understanding Business Enterprise. In addition the programme would guide and assist individuals into and through the mainstream business support options.

In support of achieving these aims, the Exploring Enterprise 3 Programme had the following objectives:

• Participants should want to enter or re-enter the labour market • Participants should be prepared to take an active role and commit to the course • Participants potential business must not be illegal or immoral.

All persons aged 16 and over, who were unemployed, economically inactive or working/studying less than 16 hours per week were eligible to participate in the programme. Excluded individuals were:

- Participants of Steps to Success; - Days for which SSP or SMP had been claimed; - Time spent in compulsory education; - Time spent on training or education courses lasting more than four weeks.

24

RDC.15.10.15

Exploring Enterprise 3 Programme was only available once to the same participant and participants who completed Exploring Enterprise I or II programmes were not eligible to complete Exploring Enterprise 3 Programme.

Exploring Enterprise 3 Programme would provide the additional outcomes:

 Equip participants with the attributes, capabilities and skills that progress them into employment or self-employment;  Professional recognised qualification;  Increase in soft skills;  Access to mentors with skills and expertise in area;  Signposting or access to relevant training and labour market support and resources.

The programme would target disadvantaged people struggling to get back or even to enter the labour market for the first time.

Exploring Enterprise 3 Programme was currently funded by ESF, DEL, ENI and the local enterprise agency network in Northern Ireland. This was a two and a quarter year programme commencing in December 2015 and ending March 2018. Direct delivery would be completed by 31 December 2017. The period between December 2015 and December 2017 would be fully dedicated to the actual delivery of the courses and the last quarter (from January 2017 to March 2018) would be specifically dedicated to reporting and to the final claim under this programme.

It was expected that ten participants would participate in each of the eight courses, bringing the total of participants to 80 over the two year delivery period.

Assessment of the proposal

Ards Business Centre and NDDO would deliver four courses each over the duration of the programme and early indications showed that the level of interest in the programme was very high. Previous Exploring Enterprise Programmes had been oversubscribed and potential participants had already registered their intention to apply

As the Exploring Enterprise programme was specifically aimed at business pre-start, it was deemed to be fully complementary to the economic development portfolio of the Council in relation to transferring functions.

Further to evaluation of the previous Exploring Enterprise programmes, it had been identified that the majority of participants were aged 40 and over. Pre-start assistance was available to young people up to the age of 30 through the Prince’s Trust, however, no programme catered for pre-start after that age. The programme therefore addressed an obvious gap in the market.

Costs

25

RDC.15.10.15

A total of eight courses would be run by Ards Business Centre and NDDO. These courses would start each quarter over a period of two years. European Social Fund projects required public match funding of 35% in order to proceed.

The cost breakdown was as follows:

Cost per course (10 participants each): £14,730.11

Cost to Local Enterprise Agency: £ 9,574.57

Match Funding Requested from Council: £ 5,155.54 (x8)

Total Requested from the Council over the two year period: £41,244.32 (total of 80 participants)

This breakdown showed that the cost to the Council for taking trainees through the course was £515.55 per trainee.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves match funding of £41,244.32 to Ards Business Centre and North Down Development Organisation for the delivery of the Exploring Enterprise 3 Programme across the Borough.

In response to a query from Councillor Roberts, the Head of Economic Development and Tourism confirmed that funding for the programme had been budgeted for.

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

(Alderman Smith and Councillor Cathcart entered the meeting at this stage – 8.56pm)

14. EAST BORDER REGION STUDY TRIP TO LEUVEN, BELGIUM

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 28 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing the East Border Region study trip to Leuven, Belgium.

Background

It had been agreed in June 2015 that, three Members who had been nominated to the Executive of East Border Region, along with one Council Officer, would travel to Leuven to participate in a dedicated programme on EU Policy, relevant to Cross Border organisations.

Update

The Elected Members, (Alderman McDowell, Alderman Keery and Councillor Fletcher) accompanied by the Head of Economic Development and Tourism, had attended from 14-16 September 2015 along with the other Councils which made up

26

RDC.15.10.15 the East Border Region (Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon, Newry Mourne and Down, Louth, Monaghan and Meath).

The programme over the three days had been wide ranging and had covered many topics relevant to EU Policy and cross border co-operation and had provided the opportunity to visit and learn from regions which collaborated to leverage not just EU funding but also to attract investment to their region.

The trip had provided Members and Officers the opportunity to network and to get to know their counterparts in the new Councils which now formed the East Border Region.

It had also provided the opportunity to learn about the role of the Committee of the Regions in Brussels, the Northern Ireland Executive Office, the Irish Regions office and to make contacts in the various organisations that the Council could tap into to learn from best practice and to further its use of EU structures and funding going forward.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the report.

In response to a query from Alderman Girvan the Head of Economic Development and Tourism advised that the trip was funded by East Border Region.

Alderman Girvan then asked if anything concrete had come out of the visit that could be useful to the Borough. The Head of Economic Development and Tourism reported that models for cross-border collaboration had been discussed, including how to market the region and work collectively and regionally. Secondly, they had obtained useful information in respect of developing a website and financed by Interreg funding. Thirdly they had had the opportunity to investigate the assembly of regions in Brussels and look at what this involved including the cost to see if there was any value in adopting something similar in the East Border Region.

Councillor Roberts requested that, going forward, Members report to the Committee on the outcomes and achievements of trips such as these in order to maximise learning and ensure accountability. Concurring the Chairman stated that on previous occasions Members’ had updated the Council following trips similar to this and it had proved to be useful.

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

15. RELOCATION OF CHRISTMAS TREE, BANGOR

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 6 October 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that over the past number of years the Bangor Christmas Tree had been located at the Town Hall and encompassing a firework display.

27

RDC.15.10.15

Traditionally this had been well supported by residents and visitors to the town but did not encourage participants to necessarily visit and stay in the main part of town and continue their Christmas shopping and enhance their experience.

Given the difficulties facing the traders due to on-going public realm works and the need to attract footfall into the centre of the town, Officers had been examining options to attract and retain visitors attending the Christmas switch-on that would not only boost footfall for the traders, but also enhance the overall visitor experience.

Having examined different sites, the McKee Clock arena was deemed the most advantageous for the following reasons:

 Available space for viewers  Fireworks from the pier as a potentially better site than the Town Hall as the display could be fired seaward and create a bigger spectacle  Increased footfall to the town centre  Increased business potential for Bridge Street (currently adversely affected by public realm works)  Infrastructure already in place  Dovetailing with Christmas activities at Project 24

RECOMMENDED that the Council agrees to relocate the Bangor Christmas Tree to the McKee Clock arena for 2015.

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

16. BANGOR GARDEN OF REMEMBRANCE (Appendix IX)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 29 September 2015 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that traditionally a garden of remembrance had been located outside the Danske Bank on Main Street, Bangor and was due to be installed on 25 October 2015. Due to the finalisation of public realm works on Main Street, the contractor would be working extensively in this area over the designated period and therefore the normal location was not available.

Various sites had been considered and consultation had taken place with the Royal British Legion. On reviewing locations and taking into account the dimensions of the garden, it was essential there was sufficient space for pedestrian movement.

Given the need for a reasonably central location, not far from the existing site and with enough depth for pedestrian flow and covered by CCTV, it was believed that the garden of remembrance should be relocated at the side of Boots.

Permission had been granted by Boots and the Royal British Legion was content with the location (as per the attached photograph). The Chamber of Trade had also been notified and the temporary site would be well publicised.

28

RDC.15.10.15

RECOMMENDED that the Council agrees to the temporary relocation of the Bangor Garden of Remembrance.

Alderman Smith stated that while she acknowledged the relocation of the garden of remembrance was necessary, she was disappointed in the revised location and believed it was in no way an appropriate alternative. She asked what other sites had been considered.

In response, the Head of Regeneration advised that other sites had been considered alongside consultation with the Royal British Legion and the final site had been agreed due to its proximity to the existing site and because there would be adequate space for pedestrian movement.

Alderman Smith commented that the flowerbed next to the Post Office would be ideal for planting in the design of a poppy.

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

17. ARMED FORCES DAY (Appendix X)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 9 October 2015 from the Chief Executive reminding Members of the annual Armed Forces Day held through the United Kingdom and including in Northern Ireland.

A letter had been received from the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association enclosing a further letter from 38th (Irish) Brigade setting out how the allocation of Regional (Northern Ireland) Armed Forces Day moving forward would be carried out. It was hoped that once Councils indicated their interest then an agreed rotation plan will be put in place.

It was recognised that Ards Borough Council had hosted a very successful event in Newtownards in 2014 however this did not preclude a further application even for 2016.

While the event programme for 2016/2017 would be brought for consideration by the Committee in November, it would be prudent for the Council to indicate its interest in hosting future Armed Forces Days now.

RECOMMENDED that the Council indicates its interest in hosting future Armed Forces Days.

Rising in support, Councillor Ferguson expressed delight that the Council could indicate its wish to be included as a host for future Regional Armed Forces Days. She commended Council officers and staff on the success of the recent Battle of Britain event, which had been a fantastic day for Newtownards. She was particularly pleased to have had the chance to meet some veterans on the day. Furthermore, she commented on the success of the activities in the town centre that day, such as the vintage market and Blair Mayne Exhibition in the town hall and the high number of visitors to the town that these events had attracted.

29

RDC.15.10.15

Concurring with these comments, Councillor Cooper was also delighted to have had the opportunity to meet veterans at the Battle of Britain event. He continued that the town had reaped many benefits from the event including increased footfall in the town centre and shops. Referring to the first sentence of the report, he expressed disdain at the separation of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom (UK), as it was part of the UK and therefore this distinction was not necessary. He urged the Council to indicate its interest in hosting future Regional Armed Forces Days and also making a further application for 2016.

The Chairman also commended staff for the success of the Battle of Britain event.

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

18. LIST OF CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

18.1 Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure – Policy Proposals for a Fishery Management Plan for Lough Erne

(Comments to be submitted no later than 4 December 2015)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Consultation Document from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure on Policy Proposals for a Fishery Management Plan for Lough Erne.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Alderman Girvan, that the Consultation Document be noted.

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Cummings, that the public and press be excluded from the meeting.

19. PROJECT MANAGER’S REPORT – BANGOR AND HOLYWOOD PUBLIC REALM (Appendix XI)

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATON***

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

20. VERBAL UPDATE ON EXPLORIS

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATON***

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

30

RDC.15.10.15

RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

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

21. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 9.15pm

31

ITEM 6.5.1

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 28 October 2015

Responsible Officer Director of Regeneration and Planning

Date of Report 22 October 2015

File Reference 171453

Legislation

Section 75 Compliant Yes X No Not Applicable

Subject Theatre Provision Study Report

Attachments None

The minutes from the Regeneration and Development Committee of 15 October 2015 indicate that members sought clarification on the seating capacity of SERC’s new performing Arts Centre (SPACE) and the impact that this may have on the recommendation.

Based on a review of their file and the report the Venturei Network confirms the following:

 The Venturei Network had a face to face consultation with SERC on 15 December, 2014; this included a presentation in relation to the Performing Arts, Technology and Innovation Centre and a visit to the site (in construction);

 The meeting was attended by the Principal and the Departmental Head and teaching staff.

The presentation and meeting confirmed that the overall facility would comprise 3,650 sq m (40,150 sq ft) set out as follows:

o 1,820 sq m Performing Arts o 1,665 sq m Technology and Innovation o 165 sq m Common Area

 Discussion with the Team indicated that the fully fitted Flexible Theatre had the potential to accommodate 300-350 seats and would be made available for community use.

 A review of the SPACE on the SERC website confirmed a 300 to 350 seater Theatre was to be built.

 At the point of consultation the annual Audience Development Plan was yet to be developed. It would be available closer to opening (mid to late 2015).

From the perspective of the Venturei Network the recommendation is confirming that it would not be prudent to progress (in a short-term timeframe) the development of an additional theatre space in the Queen’s Parade building (the Destination or Place building) due to the following considerations:

 The annual cost, in addition to capital works, of annual subvention required to maintain a Council owned theatre is typically between £100,000 and £500,000 which would have a significant impact on the rate payer.

 The close proximity to Belfast and the subsequent contractural ‘theatre exclusion rights’ would mean that it is unlikely that Bangor would be able to attract the large shows which drive demand as it falls within a 20 mile radius of Belfast.

Within this context, the seat capacity of the new SPACE at SERC would not materially affect the decision on the feasibility of a theatre space, whether this be on the Queen’s Parade site or other local location in Bangor or the Borough.

The recommended option 3 focuses on taking a strategic approach to any investment decision recognising a ‘fluid’ context at present formed by Local Government Reform, the development of new Tourism and Arts Strategies and the need to set any investment in theatre/arts facilities in line with a changing market post opening of the SERC facilities and the Drama Club’s proposal for use of the Good Templar Hall site etc.

John O’Neill, Director of Venturei was asked to comment further and states:

“Our recommendation confirms the findings of the study in that it would not be prudent to progress the development of an additional theatre space at this time based on all the factors identified. The seating capacity of one venue does not have a material impact on the outcome of the study; factors such as cost, demand, proximity to Belfast and other nearby provision have much more bearing”.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council notes this further report. ITEM 6.6

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A special meeting of the Corporate Services Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Monday, 19 October 2015 at 7.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Alderman Carson

Aldermen: Chambers (7.11pm) Gibson Graham (7.08pm) Keery

Councillors: Barry Muir (7.12pm) Brooks (7.01pm) McIlveen Gilmour Smart Kennedy T Smith

Officers: Chief Executive, Director of Community and Wellbeing, Director of Environment, Director of Organisational Development and Administration, Head of Finance, Performance Accountant and Democratic Services Officer.

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Alderman Chambers and Councillor T Smith for lateness.

The Chairman (Alderman Carson) took the opportunity to inform members that the Director of Finance and Performance remained unwell adding that members would no doubt wish to send him their best wishes at this time.

NOTED.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman asked for any declarations of interest.

None were made.

NOTED.

(Councillors Brooks and T Smith entered the meeting at this stage – 7.01pm)

CS 19.10.15

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

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

3. BUDGET SETTING AND ESTIMATES FOR 2016/17 (Appendix I)

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

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

4. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 8.20pm.

2

From: Carson Julia Date: 23 September 2015 10:25 To: Brown, Emily Subject: NIE Networks presentation to Council

Dear Emily

I am writing to outline the presentation we would like to make to the Council in October / November time. In previous years we have invited Councillors to our local depots but this year we are taking a wider, more pro-active approach and would like to present on a number of current topics including:

 Winter preparations – how we prepare, restoration process  Meter Replacement Programme  NIE Networks investment in your area  Connecting to the network  Services for elected representatives.

We are happy to work around your timing and would welcome the opportunity to speak to your Council members in the coming months. The best number of contact me on is 07788435713.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes

Julia

Julia Carson Communications Manager

Northern Ireland Electricity Networks (NIE Networks) Danesfort 120 Malone Road Belfast BT9 5HT

I: 32259 T: +44(0)28 9068 9259 M: +44 (0)7788 435 713 E: [email protected] Medialine: 0845 300 3556 web nienetworks.co.uk | twitter @NIElectricity | youtube youtube.com/nieelectricity

Are you planning work near the electricity network? Call NIE on 03457 643 643 before you start work to request a free mark up map showing the location of underground cables at your work site. Go to nie.co.uk for more safe working advice.

This correspondence is confidential and is solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or any part of it. If you are not the intended recipient please delete this correspondence from your system and notify the sender immediately. No warranty is given that this correspondence is free from any virus. In keeping with good computer practice, you should ensure that it is actually virus free. E-mail messages may be subject to delays, non-delivery and unauthorised alterations, therefore information expressed in this message is not given or endorsed by the author's employer or any of its associates or subsidiaries unless otherwise notified by its duly authorised representative independently of this message.

Consultation document

2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Consultation open: 25 September 2015 to 17 December 2015

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Responding to this consultation ...... 5 3. The 2021 Census Design ...... 6 3.1. Use of administrative data ...... 6 3.2. Outputs, dissemination and disclosure control ...... 7 3.3. Use of survey data ...... 7 3.4. Enumeration bases ...... 7 4. Summary of topic recommendations for the 2021 Census ...... 8 5. Topics under consideration for collection by the 2021 Census ...... 10 5.1. Demography ...... 10 5.2. Ethnicity, Identity, Language and Religion...... 11 5.3. Health ...... 14 5.4. Housing and accommodation ...... 16 5.5. Qualifications ...... 18 5.6. Labour market ...... 18 5.7. Travel to work or place of study ...... 20 5.8. Migration ...... 21 5.9. Income...... 22 5.10. Sexual identity ...... 23 5.11. Second residence ...... 24 6. Evaluation criteria for consultation responses ...... 26 6.1. User requirements ...... 27 6.2. Considerations ...... 28 6.3. Operational requirements ...... 29 Annex 1: Census data quality ...... 30 1.1 Item Imputation Rates and CQS Agreement Rates ...... 30 1.2 Response channel ...... 33 Annex 2: Consultation questions ...... 34 Section 1: Part 1 – Topics included in the 2011 Census ...... 34 Section 1: Part 2 – Topics not included in the 2011 Census ...... 40 Section 2: About you ...... 45 Section 3: Consent ...... 46 Annex 3: Glossary ...... 47 Annex 4: References ...... 55

2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

1. Introduction

The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) is responsible for the Census in Northern Ireland. This consultation is NISRA’s first step towards understanding what you need from the 2021 Census. NISRA wants to build on the success of the 2011 Census and ensure that the 2021 Census reflects the information needs of users. NISRA aims to maintain or improve the quality of the data for those topics collected, provide comparability where users say it is important and deliver information that is relevant to their needs in 2021 and beyond.

The Census is just one part of a much wider statistical system. Collecting information through a Census represents a significant investment and imposes a burden on all respondents in Northern Ireland. In some instances, there will be other more appropriate ways to collect information, and your response will help NISRA assess how best to meet your information need. The Census will only be used when it is the most effective way to collect information to meet a strong user requirement, and the associated benefits outweigh the cost of collection.

This paper provides NISRA’s initial view on the topic content of the 2021 Census questionnaire for Northern Ireland. This has been informed by evaluation of the level of success of the 2011 topics and questions, as well as evidence from the 2011 Census User Satisfaction Survey. It has also been informed by NISRA’s aspirations for using administrative data.

NISRA’s aim in issuing this paper is to promote discussion and encourage the development of strong cases for topics to be included. The focus for now is on information required, not the detailed questions that should be asked on the questionnaire. The exact content of the questionnaire for the 2021 Census will only be finalised after further research, testing and consultation.

It is important to recognise that constraints on the length of the questionnaire will remain. It is not sustainable to continue to expand the number of questions. Therefore, the introduction of any new topics may mean the removal of existing topics. NISRA needs to ensure the relevance of the topics included and the ability to measure change and identify trends, without increasing respondent burden and the costs associated with a longer questionnaire. Changes will be considered to address:

• user requirements for outputs • new or emerging policy requirements that cannot be addressed through the use of survey or administrative data • changes in international guidelines (for example, around the labour market topic) and in legislation.

3 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

In the interests of transparency, Section 6 Evaluation Criteria, lists the criteria against which cases for topic inclusion will be assessed. This will give respondents a clear view of the constraints and trade-offs from the start of the consultation process.

There will be separate Censuses in England and Wales and in Scotland. The three Census Offices (NISRA, National Records of Scotland (NRS) and Office for National Statistics (ONS)) will work together to develop questions that deliver, where possible, harmonised outputs across the UK.

4 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

2. Responding to this consultation

The best way to respond to this consultation is online, where you may comment on as many topics as are of interest to you.

If you wish to respond by email or on paper, please download the Topic Consultation Questionnaire (PDF version or MS Word version) which caters for up to five topics. For additional topics, please download additional copies of the Topic Consultation Questionnaire as required. When you have completed the questionnaire, please return it:

by email to: [email protected]

or by post to: Census Office NISRA McAuley House 2-14 Castle Street Belfast BT1 1SA

For each topic you are responding on, you need to answer all of the questions asked so NISRA can understand what information you need and carefully assess this against other competing priorities.

Responses to this consultation are invited until midnight on 17 December 2015.

To support transparency in our decision making process, all responses to this consultation will be made public (subject to our Moderation Policy). This will include the name of the responding organisation (if applicable). However, names of individuals will only be published if you give consent. Your contact details will not be published.

(Please be aware that any information provided in response to this consultation could be made publicly available if required under a Freedom of Information request.)

5 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

3. The 2021 Census Design

In October 2014, the Registrar General for Northern Ireland published a review of The Future Provision of Census of Population Information for Northern Ireland.

He advised that he had considered the evidence produced by the work of the other Census Offices in the UK along with NISRA’s own research programme, and concluded that the 2021 Census should be undertaken predominantly online, be quality assured by administrative data and build on the successful approach developed in 2011.

Over the coming years, NISRA plans to research, test and understand any implications for the operation or the quality of the outputs resulting from the move to a predominantly online Census. The outcome of this research and testing will be a key determinant of the scope of changes to questions, and, therefore, output content available.

Key considerations will be whether the move to online might:

• significantly affect the way people respond to each question and therefore affect comparability over time or with other data sources • impact on respondents’ understanding of the question and therefore the way in which they respond • impact on the overall length of time to complete the questionnaire • create an inconsistency with the corresponding question ‘on paper’ that would impact on the quality of the results.

3.1. Use of administrative data

NISRA has identified the need to make better use of administrative data to supplement the 2021 Census and to quality assure the outputs. For instance, in 2011, NISRA had to produce an Address Register and will once again need to deliver an address frame to underpin the 2021 Census. NISRA intends to enhance the methods for producing the Address Register by building an intelligent address frame through linking administrative data to provide contextual information about individual addresses. With more information about each individual address, there are opportunities to improve plans for census enumeration, target follow-up and support services, and help understand and model non-response.

NISRA will also use administrative data to derive and evaluate trial population outputs and to quality assure the socio-economic characteristics for Census returns.

6 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

3.2. Outputs, dissemination and disclosure control

NISRA needs to learn from the 2011 Census, building on the aspects that worked well, while looking at new approaches and alternatives for those areas that can be improved.

For the 2021 Census, NISRA will be giving consideration to moving from the traditional approach of producing a large number of small datasets to producing a smaller number of larger datasets that allow greater flexibility, yet still ensure the required level of statistical disclosure control. If that option were adopted, it would have the potential to allow users to generate the combinations of variables at the detail they require for their chosen geographic areas. It would also make the data easier to access in an open format by other systems and services, thereby further extending the reach and benefits derived from the Census.

Consultation activities relating to outputs and access to data will take place in due course.

3.3. Use of survey data

NISRA has considered various surveys in relation to a wide range of topics. In each case, NISRA has concluded that the surveys are unable to provide lower-level geographic data as an alternative to collecting the information in the Census. In essence, they would only be alternatives if the information is required at high geographic levels.

3.4. Enumeration bases

NISRA intends to adopt the enumeration bases used in the 2011 Census for the 2021 Census: usual residents, short-term residents and visitors. An advantage of this approach will be to ensure continuity of population measurement with the 2011 Census. The primary output base will also be the same as in 2011, that is, all usual residents.

7 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

4. Summary of topic recommendations for the 2021 Census

Table 1 below provides a summary of NISRA’s initial view on the content of the 2021 Census questionnaire for Northern Ireland. It shows:

• which topics and sub-topics have been considered (and NISRA’s recommendation as to which should be collected) • where further information is required before a recommendation can be made • where NISRA feels that there is a need to explore the potential to use existing administrative data.

Table 1: Summary of topic recommendations

Do not collect, Further Do not explore Theme Collect information collect administrative required data potential • Sex • Age • Marital or Legal • Sexual Partnership identity Demography status • Second • Household and residence family relationships • Country of birth • Passports held • National identity • Ethnic group • Main language Ethnicity, • Proficiency in Identity, English

Language and • Knowledge of Religion Irish • Knowledge of Ulster-Scots • Current religion • Religion brought up in • Long-term health problem or disability • Nature of long- Health term conditions • General health • Provision of unpaid care

8 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Do not collect, Further Do not explore Theme Collect information collect administrative required data potential • Type and self- containment of accommodation • Central • Rooms Housing and heating • Household accommodation • Cars or adaptations vans • Tenure and landlord (if renting) • Qualifications Qualifications held • Volunteering • Year last • Economic worked Labour market* activity • Income • Supervisory • Occupation status • Industry • Travel to work or Travel to work place of study • Travel to place of study • Intention to stay in UK • Ever lived outside Northern Ireland • Country of Migration previous residence • Most recent arrival to live in Northern Ireland • Address one year ago *NISRA intends to collect the range of information needed to derive National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SeC).

9 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

5. Topics under consideration for collection by the 2021 Census

This section sets out NISRA’s initial view on each of the topics under consideration for collection by the 2021 Census using the classification system set out in the table below.

Initial view Definition Proposed to include based on current understanding Collect of user needs and quality issues. Proposed not to include as NISRA has concerns Do not collect about collection, acceptability or insufficient user need. Do not collect, explore Where NISRA can see potential to use administrative data potential administrative data to meet the need. Where further information about the user need is required to make an assessment. In some cases Further information required there may be potential to use administrative data to meet the need.

5.1. Demography

Topic detail Initial view Comment

Sex Collect Essential demographic information. Essential demographic information. Age will be derived Age Collect from the collection of date of birth. Marital or Legal Collect Essential demographic information. Partnership status Household and family Collect Essential demographic information. relationships Further Sexual information See Section 5.10 Sexual identity. identity required Further Second information See Section 5.11 Second residence. residence required

Sex, Age and Marital or Legal Partnership status

Basic demographic information is essential for the majority of census outputs and is assumed to be a key requirement of census users. In this context, basic

10 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland demographic information is considered to be sex, age, marital or legal partnership status and household and family relationships.

Household and family relationships

The Census provides detailed information on the social composition of families and households that is not available from any other source. It is important that the information available about these relationships remains relevant to the way it is used. NISRA intends to continue to collect information about household and family relationships.

As well as information about people in households, the Census also collects information about the population living in communal establishments. As with previous Censuses, NISRA does not intend to collect information about relationships between people living in communal establishments.

5.2. Ethnicity, Identity, Language and Religion

Initial Topic detail Comment view Country of This is a key indicator of population change through Collect birth migration. Testing for 2011 suggested that information on the Passports Collect passports held is an important element in establishing held citizenship. A question on national identity was introduced in the 2011 Census across the UK primarily to enable people National from minority ethnic populations to more fully articulate Collect identity different aspects of their identity. It is acknowledged that there is an added dimension within a Northern Ireland context. Ethnic group is a key census variable, required for a Ethnic group Collect wide range of uses by government, academia and wider user community. There is a strong user need for these data for service Main Collect planning and resource allocation, as well as promoting language community cohesion and preventing social isolation. There is a strong user need for these data for service Proficiency in Collect planning and resource allocation, as well as promoting English community cohesion and preventing social isolation. There is a strong user need for information on Knowledge Collect knowledge of Irish, not least to track change since of Irish 1991. Knowledge There is a strong user need for information on of Ulster- Collect knowledge of Ulster-Scots, not least to track change Scots since 2011.

11 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Initial Topic detail Comment view Current religion NISRA intends to measure religion in a comparable and manner to 2011 to examine change over time. NISRA Collect religion also intends to ask the supplementary question on brought religion brought up in. up in

Country of birth

This is a key indicator of population change through migration, for instance, the recent inwards migration from EU Accession countries (Section 5.8 also discusses migration). NISRA’s initial view is that country of birth will be included in the 2021 Census.

Passports held

Testing for the 2011 Census across the UK suggested that information on passports held is an important element in establishing citizenship. NISRA intends to collect this information again in 2021.

It is recognised that Northern Ireland residents can hold either a UK or Ireland passport, or both.

National identity

A question on national identity was collected for the first time in the 2011 Census primarily to enable people from minority ethnic populations to more fully articulate different aspects of their identity. It is acknowledged that there is an added dimension within a Northern Ireland context and considerable media attention was given to the results when examined against religion. These data were also widely analysed in conjunction with variables such as age, qualifications and geographic area.

NISRA’s initial view is that this topic will be included in the 2021 Census.

Ethnic group

Ethnic group has been collected in the Census since 2001, and has become one of the most widely used variables. These data are used for resource allocation by central government and the wider user community to inform policy development and to help organisations meet and monitor their statutory obligations stemming from the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Ethnic group data will also be relevant to the Racial Equality Strategy for Northern Ireland 2014-2024.

12 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Ethnic group is also widely used by government departments, the education authority and Health and Social Care Trusts to inform service provision. NISRA is confident that this will remain the case for the 2021 Census, and the initial view is that the 2021 Census will include this topic.

Main language and Proficiency in English

There is a strong user need for information on the main language used and proficiency in English for service planning and resource allocation, as well as promoting community cohesion and preventing social isolation.

NISRA’s initial view is that the 2021 Census will collect data on both main language and proficiency in English.

Knowledge of Irish and Knowledge of Ulster-Scots

There is a strong user need for information on both knowledge of Irish and knowledge of Ulster-Scots. The question on the Irish Language has been included since the 1991 Census, while that on Ulster-Scots was introduced in 2011. NISRA’s initial view is that both will be included in the 2021 Census.

Religion

A religion question has been included in every Northern Ireland Census. The Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 indicates that, unlike other questions in the Census, there is no penalty for not completing the question about religion. Accordingly, in recent Censuses, a number of respondents have not answered the religion question, and further respondents have indicated ‘None’.

Equality legislation, for instance, Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Article 55 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, makes it an offence to discriminate on the grounds of religion, and leads to the requirement, for example, for employers to maintain monitoring information on the religion of their employees. In this respect, guidance documents from the Equality Commission refer to the ‘community background’ of employees.

Equality Commission documents note that (with regard to equality monitoring forms):

“Regardless of whether we practice religion, most of us in Northern Ireland are seen as either Catholic or Protestant. We are therefore asking you to indicate your community background by ticking the appropriate box below”.

In response to the increasing proportions of the population who indicated that they had no religion or did not reply to the question, and to aid equality monitoring, it was proposed that an additional question be asked in the 2001 Census – about religion brought up in – but asked only of those who indicated that they did not belong to any current religion. This was announced in the White Paper published in 1999 that contained proposals for the 2001 Census.

13 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Accordingly, two sets of outputs associated with religion were produced for the 2001 Census. The first was based solely on the current religion question. A second output was produced that combined the responses to the questions on religion and religion brought up in. A similar approach was taken in the 2011 Census.

The publication of two distinct outputs provides users with a range of information designed to meet their specific requirements, including resource allocation, policy development and statutory obligations.

NISRA understands that comparability with the 2011 and 2001 Censuses, which asked broadly the same questions, is very important to users. Any change that would affect the comparability of data on this topic would have to meet a clearly identified and strong user need.

NISRA therefore intends to measure religion in a comparable manner to 2011 to examine change over time. NISRA also intends to ask the supplementary question on religion brought up in, and publish two distinct and complementary sets of outputs.

5.3. Health

Initial Topic detail Comment view Long-term There is strong user demand for this information for health Collect resource allocation, identifying health inequalities and problem or policy development and assessment. disability Nature of There is strong user demand for this information for long-term Collect resource allocation, identifying health inequalities and conditions policy development and assessment. There is strong user demand for this information for General Collect resource allocation, identifying health inequalities and health policy development and assessment. Provision of Required for policy formulation, planning formal care Collect unpaid care needs and resource allocation.

Long-term health

The 2011 Census asked for information on long-term health problems or disability and the nature of long-term conditions.

A limitation in performing normal day-to-day activities, or activity restriction, is an indicator of disability. In the 2011 Census, a long-term health problem or disability was defined as limiting a person’s day-to-day activities lasting, or expecting to last, for at least 12 months and including problems relating to old age. People were asked to assess whether their daily activities were limited a lot or a little by such a health problem, or not at all. A question on long-term health problem or disability was

14 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland first included in the 1991 Census. The number of tick boxes was increased to three in the 2011 Census to capture the degree of limitation.

A new question on the nature of long-term conditions was introduced in the 2011 Census. These data have been widely used in academic research and resource allocation by central government.

NISRA intends to continue to collect information about long-term health problems or disability and the nature of long-term conditions in the 2021 Census.

General health

General health, a self-assessment of a person’s general state of health, has been shown to be a good predictor of future needs for health services. A question on general health was first included in the 2001 Census; in 2011, the question was expanded to include a five point scale.

Users need information on self-assessed general health for a variety of reasons, including to:

• identify health and social care service needs and plan specific services • allocate health resources at different health-related geographies • assess the distribution and extent of health inequalities • develop, monitor and assess policies relating to population health, health inequalities and people with disabilities • provide evidence in support of funding applications.

NISRA intends to continue to collect information about general health in the 2021 Census.

Provision of unpaid care

Carers are regarded as a vulnerable group. The 2011 Census reported that there were 214,000 carers in Northern Ireland, or more than one in eight of the population.

In the 2011 Census, a person was defined as a provider of unpaid care if they looked after or gave any help or support to family members, friends, neighbours or others because of long-term physical or mental ill-health or disability, or problems related to old age.

NISRA intends to collect information regarding the provision of unpaid care, including the number of hours a week it is provided for, in the 2021 Census.

15 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

5.4. Housing and accommodation

Initial Topic detail Comment view

Type and self To provide housing stock information; including the containment of Collect number of household spaces within dwellings. accommodation

Number of rooms provides information on overcrowding and under-occupation. Information on Rooms Collect number of rooms is required by Eurostat in lieu of floor space.

Consultation with users prior to the 2011 Census Household identified the need for information on the number of Collect adaptations households where the property had been adapted for a range of health conditions or disabilities.

Tenure and To provide housing stock information and full tenure landlord Collect and landlord details. (if renting)

As central heating is now essentially universal, the question in the 2011 Census focused on the type of central heating.

NISRA notes that ONS does not intend to collect Further information in the 2021 Census on central heating. In Central heating information light of the different distribution in Northern Ireland, required and the anticipated further expansion of the natural gas network, NISRA’s initial view is to continue to collect central heating information but also to explore alternative data sources.

Further Used for traffic planning, however Census travel to Cars or vans information work flow data are more useful. Alternative sources of required data may be available.

Type of accommodation, Tenure and landlord

NISRA intends to collect information about accommodation type and self- containment to inform estimates of housing stock and future housing need, and full tenure details that are used for policy and planning purposes.

16 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Rooms

A question about the number of rooms provides information about household overcrowding and under-occupation, which is required by Eurostat in lieu of floor space. NISRA intends to collect this information in the 2021 Census.

Household adaptations

Consultation with users prior to the 2011 Census identified the need for information on the number of households where the property had been adapted for a range of health conditions or disabilities. Initial contact with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) confirmed that they have used information on household adaptations to inform policy development and consultation. NISRA’s initial position is to collect this information in the 2021 Census.

Central heating

As central heating is now essentially universal, the question in the 2011 Census focused on the type of central heating. The Northern Ireland distributions are very different to those in Great Britain. The 2011 figures showed that almost two in three (62.2 per cent) households in Northern Ireland used oil, while almost four in five (78.7 per cent) households in England and Wales used natural gas.

NISRA notes that ONS does not intend to collect information in the 2021 Census on central heating. In light of the different distribution in Northern Ireland, and the anticipated further expansion of the natural gas network, NISRA’s initial view is to continue to collect central heating information, but also to explore alternative data sources.

Cars or vans

Information about the number of cars or vans owned, or available for use, by members of the household was collected in the 2011 Census. This information assists central and local government with transport planning and locating public transport services.

NISRA will investigate using alternative data sources such as Driver & Vehicle Agency (DVA).

17 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

5.5. Qualifications

Topic detail Initial view Comment Qualifications Highest level of qualification is used for developing Collect held policy, service planning and resource allocation.

Information on qualifications held is widely used by a range of central and local government and statutory bodies. In the 2011 Census, data were collected on academic, vocational and professional qualifications held.

The most important measure for users is the highest level of qualifications held by individuals, which is derived from the qualifications listed.

Uses of the highest level of qualifications data include:

• government resource allocation and evidence-based policy making in relation to disadvantaged population groups; • to help target employment and training schemes; • to identify groups that lack the necessary skills to join the workforce; and • to improve the quality of the coding of occupation.

ONS research has shown that many respondents had considerable difficulty with this question. Looking at the Northern Ireland results, 4.2 per cent of responses to the qualifications question were imputed (which was relatively high) and the detailed Census Quality Survey (CQS) Agreement Rate (which reported on each actual qualification level) was relatively low at 67.3 per cent. However, due to the known user requirement and the fact that the provision of information on education is a Eurostat requirement, NISRA’s initial view is to continue to collect data on academic, vocational and professional qualifications held and conduct further work to improve the question.

5.6. Labour market

Topic Detail Initial view Comment Economic There was a clear demand for labour market Collect activity information in the 2011 Census consultation. There was a clear demand for labour market Occupation Collect information in the 2011 Census consultation. Further NISRA intends to clarify the user requirement for Volunteering information information about volunteering. required Further Year last The user requirement to collect this information information worked through the Census is not clear. required

18 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Topic Detail Initial view Comment Further Supervisory The user requirement to collect this information information status through the Census is not clear. required Further The user requirement to collect this information Industry information through the Census is not clear, although NISRA is required required to provide it to Eurostat. National Statistics Socio- Methodology and quality would change if year last Derive economic worked and industry are not collected. Classification (NS-SeC) Do not collect, Income explore See Section 5.9 Income. administrative data potential

Labour market

Labour market information is used in a variety of census outputs, showing how different sections of the population participate in various forms of work.

There was a clear demand for labour market information in the 2011 Census consultation, particularly economic activity. Evidence from the 2011 Census User Satisfaction Survey also supported the continued collection of labour market information.

Economic activity, Occupation and Volunteering

Economic activity is derived from questions about activity last week, employment status, hours worked, age and student information.

Since 2011, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has introduced new concepts about economic activity, such as referring to this concept as ‘labour force/outside the labour force’. The changes also place more emphasis on whether or not people are paid for the work they do, as opposed to their activity during the reference period, which could impact how unpaid work through trainee schemes is categorised. NISRA intends to explore the impact of these changes on the derivation of economic activity and occupation information.

Very limited information on voluntary work without pay was collected in the 2011 Census as there was insufficient space to seek detail on aspects such as the types of voluntary work undertaken or the length of time spent volunteering. It may therefore be more appropriate for this topic to be covered in the annual ‘Volunteering in Northern Ireland’ research published by the Department of Social Development. NISRA intends to clarify the user requirement for this information for 2021.

19 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

NISRA therefore intends to collect information about economic activity and occupation in the 2021 Census and clarify the user requirement for information on voluntary work without pay.

Year last worked, Supervisory status, Industry and NS-SeC

Year last worked, supervisory status and industry were primarily used in the classification and coding of occupation and NS-SeC (which provides an indication of socio-economic position based on occupation and is used for understanding inequalities, particularly in relation to health).

Without year last worked, supervisory status and industry, there would be a reduction in the quality of NS-SeC. However, predominantly online collection in 2021 could improve the coding of occupation data, which could in turn improve the quality of NS-SeC. The 2011 Census consultation did not show clear user interest in either year last worked or supervisory status. As a result, NISRA requires further information on the need for this information.

Compared with other labour market information, there was not an overwhelming requirement for information on industry in its own right in the 2011 Census consultation, although NISRA is required to submit census-type industry information to Eurostat. As the question on industry is expensive to code, the need for this information needs to be very strong to justify its inclusion in the 2021 Census.

NISRA intends to review the collection of year last worked, supervisory status and industry information based on user requirements.

5.7. Travel to work or place of study

Initial Topic detail Comment view This topic is widely used across central and local Travel to government for planning and monitoring transport Collect work policy. This question was well received in 2011 and NISRA intends to ask it again in 2021. This topic is widely used across central and local Travel to government for planning and monitoring transport place of Collect policy. This question was well received in 2011 and study NISRA intends to ask it again in 2021.

In 2011, NISRA collected information on the usual means of travel to main place of work or study, which provides valuable data on transport patterns and trends that can be broken down to low geographic levels and for particular population groups.

The information on usual residence and workplace address collected in the Census also has value in the area of transport modelling. Together, these pieces of information allow measurement of traffic flows between home and work. Information

20 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland on workplace address and place of study is also useful for assessing daytime populations of particular areas for town planning purposes.

In 2021, NISRA intends to ask about travel to place of study separately from travel to work primarily because they relate to different segments of the population. Other reasons to collect the information separately are that the response categories required and transport modes may differ.

Given the clear demand for these data, NISRA intends to include these topics in the 2021 Census, asking about place of study separately from place of work.

5.8. Migration

Initial Topic detail Comment view This is a key indicator of population change and Intention to Collect migration, including identification of short-term stay in UK residents. Ever lived The specific interest is in those who have ever lived outside outside Northern Ireland. This question was asked in Collect Northern 2001; while it would be interesting to ask about the UK, Ireland NISRA does not feel that would greatly benefit users. Country of This is a key indicator of population change and previous Collect migration. residence Most recent The specific interest is in the most recent arrival into arrival to live Northern Ireland. This question was asked in 2001; Collect in Northern while it would be interesting to ask about the UK, Ireland NISRA does not feel that would greatly benefit users. Address one Address one year ago was used to identify migration to Collect year ago Northern Ireland and also within Northern Ireland.

Migration

A long-term migrant is someone who changes his or her country of usual residence for a period of at least one year, so that the country of destination effectively becomes the country of usual residence. A short-term resident is someone who visits a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of less than one year.

The 2011 Census showed that 11 per cent of the usually resident population of Northern Ireland were born outside Northern Ireland. The population of those born outside Northern Ireland was 202,000 in 2011, an increase of 51,000 on 2001: two- fifths (41 per cent) of the overall population growth between the 2001 and 2011 Censuses was accounted for by growth in the number of those born outside Northern Ireland.

21 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Intention to stay, Lived outside Northern Ireland, Country of previous residence and Most recent arrival to live in Northern Ireland

The collection of this range of information has enabled the examination of individuals’ migration history, alongside health, social and labour market questions, allowing NISRA to obtain a clearer view of different types of migrants and their socio- economic outcomes, down to low geographic levels.

NISRA does not intend to ask information about most recent arrival to the UK as typically the interests of local census users are primarily related to migration to and from Northern Ireland.

Address one year ago

Address one year ago was used to identify migration to Northern Ireland and also within Northern Ireland.

NISRA intends to continue to collect information about long and short-term international migration in the 2021 Census as well as address one year ago in order to produce information about internal migration.

5.9. Income

Topic Initial view Comment Detail Do not collect, Explore producing as an enhanced output using data Income explore from administrative sources. administrative data potential

Respondents to previous consultations have cited many potential uses of income data, for instance as an indicator of relative advantage and disadvantage and economic wellbeing, especially for low geographic levels and small population groups. Key users of income data include central government, private organisations and researchers.

Due principally to concerns around response rates and data quality, the ONS initial view is not to collect information on income in the 2021 Census; this is discussed in its Topic Consultation document. ONS intends to explore the potential to produce income statistics using administrative data, although this would require legislative approval and considerable development work.

NISRA concluded from the findings of the 2007 Census Test that a question on income should not be included in the 2011 Census for a combination of reasons. Although the response rates to the income question in the 2007 Census Test were acceptable, this was outweighed by considerations around obtaining accurate

22 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland information, difficulties in defining income sufficiently clearly within the context of a Census and questionnaire design constraints.

For these reasons, NISRA does not intend to ask a question on income in the 2021 Census, although, like ONS, NISRA will explore the availability of income related information from administrative data sources.

5.10. Sexual identity

Topic detail Initial view Comment

It is acknowledged that there is a user need for information on sexual identity. While some suggest the Further Sexual Census is the right way to collect this information, information identity concerns regarding privacy, acceptability, accuracy and required the effect on the overall response rate need to be considered.

There is a legitimate need to gather data on sexual orientation to inform policy development and enable organisations to meet and monitor their statutory obligations stemming from Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and other relevant legislation.

ONS launched the Sexual Identity Project in 2006 as a direct response to user needs for data on sexual orientation captured during the topic consultation for the 2011 Census. To date, ONS and NISRA work has focused on sexual identity, which is a subjective view of oneself, which may change over time, in different contexts and may differ from sexual attraction and behaviour.

The project developed and tested questions for face-to-face and telephone interviews. The question was first implemented for Great Britain in the Integrated Household Survey (IHS) for the period April 2009 to March 2010 and is now collected and published annually. This has led to the production of estimates of self- perceived sexual identity by age group, sex, region and occupation. The latest IHS results for 2013 showed that 1.7 per cent of adults in England and 1.4 per cent in Wales identified their sexual identity as gay, lesbian or bisexual. By way of comparison, the 2013-14 Continuous Household Survey estimated the corresponding figure for Northern Ireland as 1.6 per cent.

Important aspects of the face-to-face and telephone interview question developed by the Sexual Identity Project and used in the IHS are that: the question is asked of each individual separately; the question is not asked on behalf of absent household members; and responses to the question are presented in such a way that respondents will not have to reveal their answer to anyone else. This promotes privacy between household members and increases acceptability of the question and accuracy of response. These features cannot be replicated in a self-

23 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

administered collection such as the Census, where the questionnaire may be completed by one individual on behalf of all family members.

It is acknowledged that there is a user need for information on sexual identity. While some suggest the Census is the right way to collect this information, concerns regarding privacy, acceptability, accuracy and the effect on overall response rate need to be considered. To assist in determining the best approach, and to provide information which may shape a testing programme, NISRA needs to understand the current requirement for information about sexual identity.

5.11. Second residence

Topic detail Initial view Comment

ONS included a question in the England and Wales 2011 Census that asked respondents if they had a second residence that they stayed at for 30 days or more per year. This information was used to report the number of usual residents who said that they had a Further Second second residence, the location of their second information residence residence and the type of second residence. required

NISRA did not have a corresponding question in the 2011 Census. However, NISRA is keen to establish the level of user need for this range of information from the Northern Ireland 2021 Census.

ONS produced a range of outputs from the England and Wales 2011 Census on second residences on: • the number of usual residents that reported having a second residence in another local authority in England and Wales that they used for 30 days or more each year, • the number who had a second residence in Scotland, Northern Ireland or outside of the UK.

The figures were grouped under three headings; ‘Working’ (an address used when working away from home or armed forces base address for military personnel who usually reside with their family), ‘Holiday’ (a holiday address) or ‘Other’ (including the home address of a student or other parent or guardian, for instance, in the case of separated parents).

ONS also reported on the proportion of second residences that were in less densely populated, rural or coastal areas.

ONS advised that children with parents who live apart and spend part of their time living with each parent should be reported as usually resident at the address at which the child spent the majority of their time. If the child spent time equally living

24 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland with each parent, then they were advised to be counted as usually resident at the address where they were staying overnight on 27 March 2011.

Given the wide range of information available, NISRA is keen to establish the level of user need for this range of information from the Northern Ireland 2021 Census.

25 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

6. Evaluation criteria for consultation responses

The final decision about the information collected in the 2021 Census will ultimately be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to take. The NISRA recommendations for the content of the 2021 Census will be based on a number of factors, and the user requirements are the key consideration. These requirements are considered alongside issues of data quality, respondent burden and public acceptability, as well as operational and financial considerations.

The basis for the NISRA evaluation of the 2021 Census Topic Consultation responses will be similar to that used by ONS and being developed by NRS. It builds on the approach used by NISRA for the 2011 Census consultation response evaluation and draws on the approaches taken by Statistics Canada, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Statistics New Zealand for their forthcoming Censuses.

As in 2011, a range of criteria will be assessed across the following three main areas of: user requirements; considerations; and operational requirements.

User requirements Considerations Operational requirements  Purpose of user need  Data quality  Improving coverage  Need for information on  Public acceptability  Coding of derived lower-level geographical  Respondent burden variables areas or population sub-  Financial concerns  Routing around groups  Questionnaire design questions  Suitability of alternative sources  Requirement for multivariate analysis  Assessment of need for comparability beyond Northern Ireland  Need for continuity with previous Censuses

User requirements, which establish the level of demand, form the key criteria for inclusion. Consideration of the data and operational requirements will be used in conjunction with the strength of the user requirements score to steer the development of the Census questionnaire. Should any issues identified using the considerations criteria be found to be disproportionate to the benefits gained, a topic may not be included in the 2021 Census despite a known user requirement.

26 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

6.1. User requirements

Topics to be included must carry a strong and clearly defined user requirement. Unless a robust case is made for gathering information from the 2021 Census, it will not be collected. Responses from users on the importance of the information will help inform the final list of topics to be included in the 2021 Census.

Criteria Description The purpose to which the information will be used, if collected, is central to the process. Purposes include, but are not restricted to, resource allocation, service planning, policy evaluation, and diversity monitoring.

Conversely; the implications if the data are not collected, Purpose of user need for example, increased financial costs or reduced quality of data used in planning, are also key.

Additionally, requirements arising from legislation (including European Union legislation) strengthen the case for inclusion. There must be a need for information for population sub- groups and/or at lower-level geographical areas. Information that is only required for broad geographical Need for information on areas or large population groups might be better obtained lower-level from other statistical sources. geographical areas or population sub-groups In general, lower-level geography data must be easily aggregated to higher levels of geography, enabling outputs to be consistent and comparable. The 2021 Census will only seek to collect information that there is no other means of obtaining. Consideration should be given to whether or not suitable information is available from other sources; for example administrative records or Suitability of alternative sample surveys. sources

In addition, the Census should primarily aim to collect information that will remain relevant for a significant time after collection. A key benefit of census data is the ability to analyse particular variables against one another. A requirement to Requirement for undertake multivariate analysis will affect whether suitable multivariate analysis alternative sources for the information exist and may strengthen the case for inclusion in the Census Data collected from the Census should be required on a comparable basis. Where possible, if there is a user Assessment of need for need, the three UK Census Offices will release census comparability beyond outputs that are consistent across the UK. Northern Ireland

International requirements will be taken into account.

27 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Criteria Description

Comparison with previous Censuses is an important aspect of census analysis and, wherever appropriate, the Need for continuity with 2021 Census questionnaire will collect the same previous Censuses information as the 2011 Census questionnaire. However, plans for future comparisons will also be taken into account.

6.2. Considerations

In addition to user requirements, other considerations need to be taken into account, such as data quality, public acceptability, respondent burden and questionnaire design.

Criteria Description The data collected in the 2021 Census should be of sufficient quality for outputs to be useful.

Data quality Hence, information collected should neither require a lengthy instruction or explanation nor seek information that is not readily known or remembered accurately. The Census is carried out primarily for statistical purposes. It should not collect data that would deliberately promote political or sectarian groups, or sponsor particular causes.

Public acceptability It should not ask sensitive or potentially intrusive questions that have a negative impact on response or may lead to respondents giving socially acceptable rather than accurate answers; nor should it enquire about opinions or attitudes. The inclusion of questions on a topic should not impose an excessive burden on respondents.

Respondent burden Burden could, for example, result from lengthy instruction or explanation, many response categories, or several questions on a single topic. Questions should not present major coding problems, Financial concerns require extensive processing, or significantly add to the overall cost of the Census. The move to predominantly online data collection creates new opportunities as well as challenges. Questionnaire design These will be taken into account when considering which topics to include in the 2021 Census.

28 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

6.3. Operational requirements

A number of operational factors could affect the decision on the content of the 2021 Census. The most important of these is their effect on improving coverage, as the primary aim of the Census is to provide a robust count of the population of Northern Ireland.

Criteria Description The 2021 Census questionnaire may include some questions that aid respondents in identifying who should be included in the response; for example, questions on visitors and defining the types of usual resident that live in Improving coverage the household.

Such questions may be included despite a lack of strong user need for outputs related to these questions, as they are important to delivering high quality outputs. It is expected that some key outputs will be based on derived variables (for example, age is derived from date of birth). Coding of derived variables Topics may be included in the 2021 Census questionnaire should a user need be identified for outputs that are derived from a variable, even if there is no user need for outputs relating to the question itself. Due to a move to a predominantly online Census, respondents can be automatically routed around questions Routing around that are irrelevant to them. However, this criterion has questions been retained to reflect the fact that there may still be a paper version of the form that would require routing questions.

29 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Annex 1: Census data quality

Two aspects of the quality of the 2011 Census data are considered in detail in this section – Item Imputation Rates and Census Quality Survey (CQS) Agreement Rates. The analysis then moves to the findings of ONS work to examine how these aspects might be affected by the method of response – whether the response was received via the internet or whether it was a paper return.

1.1 Item Imputation Rates and CQS Agreement Rates

Item non-response (the percentage of people that did not complete a question) is a key factor in the quality of census data. Item imputation, used to replace the missing data, can lead to bias and inconsistencies in estimates and analyses. For the 2011 Census, NISRA was careful to avoid the potential for this and ensured that any item imputation that was necessary yielded the same distribution as the observed values.

These Item Imputation Rates were closely monitored during processing and they were then published in the Northern Ireland Census 2011 Quality Assurance report. NISRA is therefore keen to reduce the need for item imputation in the 2021 Census, which will directly improve overall quality.

Another indicator of the overall quality of individual responses was reported through the 2011 Census Quality Survey (CQS) report, which published question-level agreement rates, namely, the level of agreement between respondents’ answers to the 2011 Census questions and their corresponding responses to the same questions in the CQS questionnaire.

The CQS was a voluntary sample survey conducted independently of the 2011 Census. It involved a random sample of 1,741 households and 3,083 individuals that had previously responded to the Census. The main finding of the CQS was that there was a high degree of similarity between the overall response distributions derived from the answers provided through the Census returns and those of the answers provided through the corresponding CQS face-to-face interviews. This confirmed that the Census was an unbiased method for collecting information on both households and individuals, hence confirming that the 2011 Census data is of a high quality and fit for purpose.

Both Item Imputation Rates and CQS Agreement Rates are used to understand the quality of the information collected from each of the census questions. This, in turn, can be used to help further develop those questions to improve the quality of data collected in the future.

30 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Table 1 below shows Item Imputation Rates and CQS Agreement Rates (where available) for questions asked about households, while Table 2 shows this information for the questions asked about individuals.

Table 1: 2011 Item Imputation Rates and CQS Agreement Rates – Household questions

Item CQS Question Question Imputation Agreement Number Rate (%) Rate (%) H7 Type of accommodation 2.4 89.3 H8 Self-contained 2.5 98.4 H9 Number of rooms 6.7 60.9 H10 Household adaptations – tick box 9.5 87.1 H10 Household adaptations – text 8.1 H10 Household adaptations (Y/N) - 89.7 H11 Central heating 6.3 80.1 H11 Central heating (Y/N) - 99.6 H12 Tenure 8.1 90.8 H13 Landlord 1.3 92.4 H14 Number of cars or vans 8.1 87.2 H14 Number of cars or vans (Y/N) - 97.2

Table 1 above shows that relatively low Item Imputation Rates were found for the household questions with the exception of ‘Household adaptations – tick box’ (at 9.5 per cent), while relatively high Agreement Rates were found, with the exception of the question on the number of rooms (60.9 per cent).

Table 2: 2011 Item Imputation Rates and CQS Agreement Rates – Individual questions

Item CQS Question Question Imputation Agreement Number Rate (%) Rate (%) 2 Sex 0.5 - 3 Age 0.7 97.5 4 Marital and Civil Partnership status 4.7 98.3 5 Student 5.0 97.0 6 Term-time address 0.3 99.4 7 Country of birth 0.8 99.2 10 Lived outside Northern Ireland 2.7 89.3 11 Country of previous residence 8.2 - 12 Date arrived in Northern Ireland – month 12.8 70.6 12 Date arrived in Northern Ireland – year 9.6 13 Address one year ago – tick box 3.0 - 13 Address one year ago – text 5.8 - 14 Passports held – tick box 1.3 92.2 14 Passports held – text 0.9

31 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Item CQS Question Question Imputation Agreement Number Rate (%) Rate (%) 14 Passports held (Y/N) - 94.8 15 National identity – tick box 2.3 66.8 15 National identity – text 2.7 16 Ethnic group – tick box 1.7 99.2 16 Ethnic group – text 10.5 17 Religion belong to - 85.9 18 Religion brought up in 16.9 73.2 19 Main language 1.6 99.2 20 Proficiency in English 2.8 64.5 21 Knowledge of Irish 2.6 87.8 21 Knowledge of Irish (Y/N) - 93.0 21 Knowledge of Ulster-Scots 2.6 90.1 21 Knowledge of Ulster-Scots (Y/N) - 91.9 22 Long-term health problem or disability 2.7 86.4 22 Long-term health problem or disability (Y/N) - 91.1 23 Type of long-term condition 4.8 70.4 23 Type of long-term condition (Y/N) - 86.4 24 General health 1.6 63.0 24 General health (VG, G / F / B, VB) - 85.0 25 Provision of unpaid care 3.5 87.4 25 Provision of unpaid care (Y/N) - 89.2 27 Qualifications 4.2 67.3 27 Qualifications (Y/N) - 88.5 28 Voluntary work 3.5 88.2 29 Employment last week 3.5 88.4 30 Looking for work 5.8 94.2 31 Available for work 8.9 91.5 32 Waiting to start work 9.8 99.2 33 Other activity 7.4 76.8 34 Ever worked 1.6 91.0 34 Year last worked 15.8 - 36 Employment status in main job 4.6 94.7 37,38 Job title 4.7 - 39 Supervision of other employees 5.0 87.2

Table 2 shows that Item Imputation Rates were generally fairly low for most of the questions asked of individuals, with the exception being those for religion brought up in (16.9 per cent) and year last worked (15.8 per cent). While relatively high Agreement Rates were found, those for general health (63.0 per cent) and proficiency in English (64.5 per cent) were considerably lower.

32 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

1.2 Response channel

ONS has examined the effect of response channel (internet versus paper) on both Item Imputation Rates and CQS Agreement Rates.

According to the ONS Topic Consultation document, Item Imputation Rates were generally much higher for paper returns than for internet returns. Although the 2011 Census data collection approach didn’t make full use of the potential that an internet form can provide (for example, the use of soft reminders, radio buttons to prevent unwanted multiple ticks), ONS suggests that the use of reminders online where questions were initially left unanswered could be a contributory factor to higher response rates and hence a lower requirement for item imputation.

A separate analysis that ONS carried out on the results of their CQS found significant differences between the Agreement Rates of internet and paper responses. The higher item response rates for internet capture were largely explained by the characteristics of the people who responded by this mode, rather than by the mode itself.

Based on these findings, NISRA believes that the move to a predominantly online Census will yield better quality data in 2021.

33 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Annex 2: Consultation questions

NISRA’s preferred way for you to respond to this consultation is online.

Please note, for your response to be included in the analysis, you must answer questions marked with a star (*).

You can respond to all topics discussed in section 5, or just to the individual topic(s) relevant to you. Please complete the questionnaire for every relevant topic, including any new topics you wish to tell NISRA about.

You should consider the appropriateness of the Census for your requirements before suggesting additional topics and be mindful that questions on the Census questionnaire must be succinct and unambiguous. In addition, there must be a requirement for statistics at lower level geographies; otherwise a sample survey is likely to provide sufficient information.

If you wish to respond by email or on paper, please download the Topic Consultation Questionnaire (PDF version or MS Word version) which caters for up to five separate topics. For additional topics, please download additional copies of the Topic Consultation Questionnaire as required.

Section 1: Part 1 – Topics included in the 2011 Census

Collection of census information can only be justified where there is an overwhelming need for the data. To help us understand your data needs and carefully assess those needs against other competing priorities, it is important that you provide as much detail as you can to support your response. This will ensure your view is fully considered in our evaluation.

Topic: ______

1. To what extent do you agree with NISRA’s initial view on whether this topic is collected on the 2021 Census questionnaire?

□ Agree □ Disagree □ No strong view

2a. Have you used 2011 Census information about this topic?

□ Yes □ No (Go to Question 4a)

34 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

2b. If yes, what have you used 2011 Census information about this topic for?

Tick all that apply.

□ Resource allocation □ Service planning and delivery □ Targeting investment □ Policy development and monitoring □ Research requirement □ Other purposes – please specify: ______

2c. How have you used 2011 Census information about this topic?

Please include details of the information sources you have used, what specific use you have made of census information and why the information is important for that.

2d. Did the information collected in the 2011 Census about this topic meet your needs?

□ Fully □ Partially □ No

2e. What additional information, if any, would you require about this topic were it to be included in the 2021 Census?

35 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

3a. At what geographical level have you used 2011 Census information about this topic?

Tick all that apply.

□ Small Area □ Super Output Area □ Electoral Ward □ Assembly Area □ Local Government District □ Regional level (for example, Health and Social Care Trust) □ Northern Ireland □ Other – please specify: ______

3b. If you have used 2011 Census information about this topic for population sub-groups please tell us which sub-groups.

For example:

• Specific ethnic groups • Minority religions • Children in kinship care • Pensioners • NEETs (Young People Not in Education, Employment or Training) • Specific occupation groups

36 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

4a. Is UK comparability a requirement for you/your work for information about this topic?

□ Yes, essential □ Yes, strong need □ Yes, some need □ No

If yes, please indicate the type of comparisons you are making.

Tick all that apply.

□ Comparisons at similar levels (for example, comparing Local Government Districts across countries) □ Comparisons at different levels (for example, comparing Local Government Districts with the UK) □ Other – please specify: ______

4b. Is Republic of Ireland comparability a requirement for you/your work for information about this topic?

□ Yes, essential □ Yes, strong need □ Yes, some need □ No

If yes, please indicate the type of comparisons you are making.

Tick all that apply.

□ Comparisons at similar levels (for example, comparing Local Government Districts across countries) □ Comparisons at different levels (for example, comparing Local Government Districts with the Republic of Ireland) □ Other – please specify: ______

37 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

4c. Is other international comparability a requirement for you/your work for information about this topic?

□ Yes, essential □ Yes, strong need □ Yes, some need □ No

5a. Do you intend to compare the 2021 Census outputs with the 2011 Census outputs for this topic?

□ Yes □ No

5b. Do you intend to compare the 2021 Census outputs with any earlier Censuses for this topic?

□ Yes □ No

5c. Have you compared 2011 Census outputs with earlier Censuses for this topic?

□ Yes □ No

38 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

6. With which 2011 Census themes have you used information about this topic?

Tick all that apply.

□ Demography □ Ethnicity, Identity, Language and Religion □ Health □ Housing and accommodation □ Qualifications □ Labour market □ Travel to work or study □ Migration □ None

7a. Are you aware of alternative (non-census) sources of information about this topic? If yes, please specify.

□ Yes – please specify: ______□ No

7b. If you answered yes to question 7a, please tell us whether the alternative source(s) meet your current requirements.

□ Yes □ No

7c. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = no impact and 10 = highest possible impact), what would be the adverse impact on you/your work if NISRA did not collect information about this topic in the 2021 Census questionnaire?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

39 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Section 1: Part 2 – Topics not included in the 2011 Census

Collection of census information can only be justified where there is an overwhelming need for the data. To help us understand your data needs and carefully assess those needs against other competing priorities, it is important that you provide as much detail as you can to support your response. This will ensure your view is fully considered in our evaluation.

Topic: ______

1. To what extent do you agree with NISRA’s initial view on whether this topic is collected on the 2021 Census questionnaire?

A response to this question is required for the topics Income and Sexual identity only.

□ Agree □ Disagree □ No strong view

2a. Have you used any published information about this topic?

□ Yes □ No (Go to Question 4a)

2b. If yes, what have you used information about this topic for?

Tick all that apply.

□ Resource allocation □ Service planning and delivery □ Targeting investment □ Policy development and monitoring □ Research requirement □ Other purposes – please specify: ______

40 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

2c. How have you used information about this topic?

Please include details of the information sources you have used, what specific use you have made of this information and why the information is important for that.

2d. This question is not applicable.

2e. This question is not applicable.

3a. At what geographical level have you used information about this topic?

Tick all that apply.

□ Small Area □ Super Output Area □ Electoral Ward □ Assembly Area □ Local Government District □ Regional level (for example, Health and Social Care Trust) □ Northern Ireland □ Other – please specify: ______

41 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

3b. If you have used information about this topic for population sub-groups please tell us which sub-groups.

For example:

• Specific ethnic groups • Minority religions • Children in kinship care • Pensioners • NEETs (Young People Not in Education, Employment or Training) • Specific occupation groups

4a. Is UK comparability a requirement for you/your work for information about this topic?

□ Yes, essential □ Yes, strong need □ Yes, some need □ No

If yes, please indicate the type of comparisons you are making.

Tick all that apply.

□ Comparisons at similar levels (for example, comparing Local Government Districts across countries) □ Comparisons at different levels (for example, comparing Local Government Districts with the UK) □ Other – please specify: ______

42 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

4b. Is Republic of Ireland comparability a requirement for you/your work for information about this topic?

□ Yes, essential □ Yes, strong need □ Yes, some need □ No

If yes, please indicate the type of comparisons you are making.

Tick all that apply.

□ Comparisons at similar levels (for example, comparing Local Government Districts across countries) □ Comparisons at different levels (for example, comparing Local Government Districts with the Republic of Ireland) □ Other – please specify: ______

4c. Is other international comparability a requirement for you/your work for information about this topic?

□ Yes, essential □ Yes, strong need □ Yes, some need □ No

5a. This question is not applicable.

5b. This question is not applicable.

5c. This question is not applicable.

43 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

6. With which other themes would you use information about this topic?

Tick all that apply.

□ Demography □ Ethnicity, Identity, Language and Religion □ Health □ Housing and accommodation □ Qualifications □ Labour market □ Travel to work or study □ Migration □ None □ Other – please specify: ______

7a. Are you aware of alternative (non-census) sources of information about this topic? If yes, please specify.

□ Yes – please specify: ______□ No

7b. If you answered yes to question 7a, please tell us whether the alternative source(s) meet your current requirements.

□ Yes □ No

7c. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = no impact and 10 = highest possible impact), what would be the adverse impact on you/your work if NISRA did not collect information about this topic in the 2021 Census questionnaire?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

44 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Section 2: About you

Are you answering this questionnaire on behalf of an organisation or as an individual? *

□ Organisation – please specify: ______□ Individual

Please provide your contact details.

Your name * ______

Email address * ______

Telephone number ______

Which of the following best describes the sector you work in? *

This will assist us in monitoring the range of users the consultation has reached. □ Central government □ Local government □ Statutory body (for example, health, education, transport, housing etc) □ Private sector □ Social / Academic research □ Market research / Data analytics □ Charity / Community / Voluntary □ Utility provider □ Press / media □ Genealogist / Family historian □ Other – please specify: ______

May we contact you to discuss your response to this consultation? *

This may be to follow up any specific points we need to clarify. □ Yes □ No

45 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

May we contact you in future about the 2021 Census? *

For example, to provide you with a link to the results of this consultation, to inform you of further consultations or provide updated information on the 2021 Census.

□ Yes □ No

Section 3: Consent

To support transparency in our decision making process, all responses to this consultation will be made public (subject to our Moderation Policy). This will include the name of the responding organisation (if applicable). However, names of individuals will only be published if you give consent below. Please note that we will not publish your contact details.

□ Yes, I consent to my name being published with my response □ No, please remove my name before publishing my response

(Please be aware that any information provided in response to this consultation could be made publicly available if requested under a Freedom of Information request).

Additional information

Do you have any further comments relevant to this consultation?

46 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Annex 3: Glossary

Term Description 2007 Census Test A large scale Census test, covering 14,000 households, that was carried out across Northern Ireland on 13 May 2007. The questionnaire was designed to test new and updated questions. Accommodation type The type of accommodation used or available for use by an individual household. Examples include the whole of a terraced house, or a flat in a purpose-built block of flats. Address Register A list of all habitable addresses, whether occupied or not, containing postal address information and geographical location. Cars or vans This is the number of cars or vans that are owned, or available for use, by one or more members of a household. This includes company cars and vans that are available for private use. It does not include motorbikes or scooters, or any cars or vans belonging to visitors. Cars or vans used by residents of communal establishments are not counted. Census Day 2011 Sunday 27 March 2011. Census Night 2011 The night of 27-28 March 2011. Census Quality Survey The Census Quality Survey (CQS) is a voluntary survey carried out shortly after the Census. It aims to measure the accuracy of answers given to census questions by asking a sample of households the census questions again in a face-to-face interview. Central heating A household is classified as having central heating if it is present in some or all rooms. Central heating is classified by type, for example, one or more of the types – gas, electric (including storage heaters), oil, solid fuel (for example, wood or coal) or other types (including solar, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) or other bottled gas). Communal establishment An establishment providing managed residential accommodation. ‘Managed’ in this context means full- time or part-time supervision of the accommodation. Continuous Household The Continuous Household Survey (CHS) runs Survey continuously, restarting each financial year. The whole- year sample size is approx 2,000 Households and approx 3,500 individuals. Country of birth Country of birth is the country in which a person was born. Country of previous The country people lived in prior to their most recent residence arrival in Northern Ireland. Current religion See: Religion

47 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Term Description Disclosure control Statistical Disclosure Control (SDC) concerns safeguarding the confidentiality of the information that the NISRA releases about people and businesses, in order to ensure that the confidentiality of individual responses is respected. DVA Driver & Vehicle Agency. Economic activity This relates to whether or not a person who was aged 16 to 74 was working or looking for work in the week before Census. Economically active A person aged 16 to 74 is described as economically active if, in the week before the Census, they were:

• in employment, as an employee or self- employed; • not in employment, but were seeking work and ready to start work within two weeks; or • not in employment, but waiting to start a job already obtained and available.

Full-time students who fulfil any of these criteria are classified as economically active and are counted separately in the 'Full-time student' category of economically active – they are not included in any of the other categories such as employees or unemployed. Economically inactive A person aged 16 to 74 is described as economically inactive if, in the week before the Census, they were not in employment but did not meet the criteria to be classified as ‘Unemployed'.

This includes a person looking for work but not available to start work within two weeks, as well as anyone not looking for work, or unable to work – for example, retired, looking after home/family, permanently sick or disabled.

Students who fulfil any of these criteria are also classified as economically inactive. This does not necessarily mean they were in full-time education and excludes students who were working or in some other way economically active.

48 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Term Description Employed A person aged 16 to 74 is defined as employed (or in employment) if in the week before the Census they carried out at least one hour's paid work, either as an employee or self-employed.

This includes casual or temporary work, on a government-sponsored training scheme, doing paid or unpaid work for their own or family business, being away from work ill, on maternity leave, or on holiday or temporarily laid off. Ethnic group Ethnic group classifies people according to their own perceived ethnic group and cultural background. Eurostat Eurostat is the statistical office of the European Union situated in Luxembourg. Its task is to provide the European Union with statistics at European level that enable comparisons between countries and regions: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat Freedom of Information The Freedom of Information Act gives you the right to ask any public sector organisation for all the recorded information they have on any subject. Further information can be found at the following location – http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/freedom-of-information General health This is a self-assessment of a person’s general state of health.

People were asked to assess their health as very good, good, fair, bad or very bad. This assessment is not based on a person's health over any specified period of time. Geography: Small Area The 4,537 Small Areas (SAs) in Northern Ireland form a new statistical geography created for the dissemination of 2011 Census outputs. Where possible, SAs have been kept identical to the 2001 Census Output Areas (COAs) to ensure comparability over time. However, in a number of cases, this was not possible, and the new 2011 SAs were created by merging two or more of the 2001 COAs together. Geography: Super There are 890 Super Output Area (SOAs) in Northern Output Area Ireland. The SOAs created for the 2011 Census outputs are almost identical to the 2001 SOAs. Health See: General health, Long-term health problem or disability, Long-term condition. Highest level of This is derived from the question that asked those aged qualification 16 years or older to indicate all types of qualifications that they held. People were able to record foreign qualifications.

49 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Term Description Hours worked The number of hours that a person, aged 16 to 74 in employment in the week before the Census, worked in their main job. This includes paid and unpaid overtime. Household A household is defined as:

• one person living alone, or • a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room or sitting room or dining area. • This includes: o sheltered accommodation units in an establishment where 50 per cent or more have their own kitchens (irrespective of whether there are other communal facilities); and o all people living in caravans on any type of site that is their usual residence.

A household must contain at least one person whose place of usual residence is at the address. A group of short-term residents living together is not classified as a household, and neither is a group of people at an address where only visitors are staying. Household adaptations Household accommodation that has been adapted or designed for one or more of the following: wheelchair, visual, hearing, other physical or mobility difficulties. Household composition Household composition classifies households according to the relationships between the household members. Industry The industry in which a person works is determined by the response to the question asking for a description of the business of the person's employer (or own business if self-employed). The responses are coded to a modified version of the UK Standard Industrial Classification of Economic Activities 2007 (UK SIC 2007). Item Imputation Rates Item imputation is used to replace missing data. The Item Imputation Rate gives the proportion of all responses that were imputed. For the 2011 Census, NISRA ensured that any item imputation that was necessary yielded a distribution that was consistent with the observed values. Integrated Household Integrated Household Survey (IHS). The IHS is the Survey largest social survey produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), providing estimates from approximately 340,000 individual respondents - the biggest pool of UK social data after the census.

50 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Term Description International Labour The International Labour Organization (ILO) is the United Organization Nations agency for the world of work. It sets international labour standards, promotes rights at work, and encourages decent employment opportunities, the enhancement of social protection and the strengthening of dialogue on work-related issues. International Labour Organization (ILO). Knowledge of Irish A person has knowledge of Irish if they can do one or more of the following: Understand Irish, Speak Irish, Read Irish, or Write Irish. Knowledge of Ulster- A person has knowledge of Ulster-Scots if they can do Scots one or more of the following: Understand Ulster-Scots, Speak Ulster-Scots, Read Ulster-Scots, or Write Ulster- Scots. Living arrangements The living arrangements classification combines responses to the question on marital and civil partnership status with information about whether or not a person is living in a couple. Long-term condition A self-assessment of whether a person has a condition which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months. Multiple responses could be given for this question. Long-term health A self-assessment of whether a person has a health problem or disability problem or disability which limits their daily activities and which has lasted, or expected to last, at least 12 months. This includes problems that are due to old age. Main language This is a person's first or preferred language. Marital or Legal Refers to a person’s legal marital or civil partnership Partnership status status as at Census day. Method of travel to work The method of travel used for the longest part, by or place of study distance, of the usual journey to work or place of study (including school). Most recent arrival to live This is the date that the person last arrived to live in in Northern Ireland Northern Ireland. Multiple deprivation The Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2010 (NIMDM 2010) is a measure of multiple deprivation at the small area level.

The model of multiple deprivation that underpins the NIMDM 2010 is based on the idea of distinct domains of deprivation which can be recognised and measured separately. These are experienced by individuals living in an area. People may be counted as deprived in one or more of the domains, depending on the number of types of deprivation that they experience. The overall MDM is conceptualised as a weighted area level aggregation of these specific domains of deprivation.

51 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Term Description National identity A self-determined assessment of their own identity with respect to the country or countries with which they feel an affiliation. This assessment of identity is not dependent on legal nationality or ethnic group. NIHE Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE). NISRA Northern Ireland Statistics & Research Agency. Northern Ireland The Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey runs three to four Omnibus Survey times per year dependent on demand, providing estimates for approximately 1,100 individuals. NRS National Records of Scotland. NS-SeC The National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SeC) provides an indication of socio-economic position based on occupation. It is an Office for National Statistics standard classification. Number of rooms This is the number of rooms in a household’s accommodation. The definition of a room does not include bathrooms, toilets, halls or landings, or rooms that can only be used for storage. All other rooms, for example, kitchens, living rooms, bedrooms, utility rooms, studies and conservatories are counted. Occupation A person's occupation is coded from the response to the question asking for the full title of the main job and the description of what is done in that job. It is coded to the 2010 edition of the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC2010). ONS Office for National Statistics. Passports held People were asked to indicate whether they held no passport, a United Kingdom passport, an Irish passport, or a passport from another country, and to write in the name of the other country if applicable. If more than one of the options were applicable, people were asked to indicate all that applied. Place of work or study The place a person travels to for their main job or course of study (including school). Proficiency in English Proficiency in English language classifies people whose language main language is not English according to their ability to speak English. A person is classified in one of the categories:

• can speak English very well, • can speak English well, • cannot speak English well, or • cannot speak English.

52 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Term Description Provision of unpaid care A person is a provider of unpaid care if they give any help or support to family members, friends, neighbours or others because of long-term physical or mental ill-health or disability, or problems related to old age. Religion People were asked to indicate which religion, religious denomination or body they belong to. Those people who did not regard themselves as belonging to any particular religion were classified as belonging to 'No religion'. Missing answers for the religion question were not imputed, so the output classifications include a 'not stated' category.

A supplementary question on religion brought up in was asked of people who either did not regard themselves as belonging to any particular religion or did not provide an answer. This information has only been used in the derivation of ‘religion or religion brought up in’ and is not included in the religion variable. Religion or religion This variable is applicable in Northern Ireland only. It brought up in identifies the religious group that people were brought up in for those who did not regard themselves as belonging to any religion. The categories of religion or religion brought up in are: Catholic; Protestant; Other Christian and Christian-related; Other Religions and None. Residence type This categorises people as living in a household or living in a communal establishment. Sexual identity Sexual identity, which is a subjective view of oneself, which may change over time, in different contexts and may differ from sexual attraction and behaviour. Short-term resident A non-UK born short-term resident is anyone born outside the UK who has stayed or intends to stay in the UK for a period of three months or more but less than 12 months. Tenure and landlord Tenure provides information about whether a household rents or owns the accommodation that it occupies and, if rented, combines this with information about the type of landlord who owns or manages the accommodation. Travel Survey for The Travel Survey for Northern Ireland is run annually; it Northern Ireland provides estimates for approximately 1,000 individuals. UN Economic The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Commission for Europe (UNECE) was set up in 1947 by ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council). It is one of five regional commissions of the United Nations. UNECE's major aim is to promote pan-European economic integration. Usual residence Generally, the address in Northern Ireland at which a person spends the majority of time. For most people, this means their permanent or family home. Usual resident A usual resident of the UK is anyone who, on Census

53 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Term Description Day 2011, was in the UK and had stayed or intended to stay in the UK for a period of 12 months or more, or had a permanent UK address and was outside the UK and intended to be outside the UK for less than 12 months.

The main population base for outputs from the 2011 Census is the usual resident population as at Census day 27 March 2011. Although the population base for enumeration included non-UK born short- term residents, this population is analysed separately and is not included in the main outputs from the 2011 Census. All outputs, unless specified, are produced using only usual residents of the UK.

For 2011 Census purposes, a usual resident of the UK is anyone who, on Census Day, was in the UK and had stayed or intended to stay in the UK for a period of 12 months or more, or had a permanent UK address and was outside the UK and intended to be outside the UK for less than 12 months. Year last worked For people aged 16 years or older who have previously been employed, the year in which they were last employed.

54 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Annex 4: References

1971 Census Questionnaire: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/census/1971/questionnaire.pdf

1991 Census Questionnaire: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/census/1991/questionnaire.pdf

2007 Census Test Evaluation Survey Report – Responders: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/census/2011/2007-test/evaluation/responders.pdf

2011 Census Household Questionnaire: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/census/2011/forms/household.pdf

2011 Census Quality Assurance Report: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/census/2011/evaluation/quality-assurance-report.pdf

2011 Census Quality Survey Report: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/census/2011/census-quality-survey.pdf

2011 Census User Satisfaction Survey Summary Report: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/census/2011/evaluation/user-satisfaction-survey- report.pdf

2013-14 Continuous Household Survey: http://www.csu.nisra.gov.uk/survey.asp1314.1.htm

Article 55 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1998/3162/part/VII/crossheading/review-of- recruitment-training-and-promotion-practices/made

Australian Bureau of Statistics Topic Consultation document: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2007.0main+features12016

2016 Census of Population and Housing: Consultation on content and procedures, 2016: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2007.0main+features12016

Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/apni/1969/8/contents

Freedom of Information Act 2000: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents

55 2021 Census: Topic Consultation for Northern Ireland

Integrated Household Survey (IHS): http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/social-and-welfare- methodology/integrated-household-survey/index.html

Data Protection Act 1998: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents

The Future Provision of Census of Population Information for Northern Ireland: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/census/2021/planning/the-future-provision-of- census-of-population-information-for-northern-ireland.pdf

Statistics New Zealand Topic Consultation document: http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2018-census/prelim-content/proposed-topics.aspx#

Northern Ireland Act 1998: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/47/contents

ONS Topic Consultation document: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2021-census/consultations/the- 2021-census---initial-view-on-content-for-england-and-wales.pdf

Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1997/869/contents/made

Racial Equality Strategy for Northern Ireland 2014-2024: http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/racial-equality-strategy

Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/47/section/75

Sexual Identity Project: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/measuring-equality/equality/sexual-identity- project/index.html

Statistics Canada Topic Consultation document: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/consultation/index-eng.cfm

Statistics Canada Census Program Content Consultation Report, Census Year 2016: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/consultation/contentReport- RapportContenu/index-eng.cfm

Volunteering in Northern Ireland: https://www.dsdni.gov.uk/publications/voluntary-and-community-research

56 From: Teresa Connolly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 October 2015 15:05 Subject: Consultation on the Review of Transport Eligibility Criteria

Dear Consultee,

Consultation on the Review of Transport Eligibility Criteria

The Education Authority is committed to consulting with and engaging local people in the planning and delivery of services. We are seeking to engage in consultation with those people and groups who have an interest in Home to School Transport Eligibility Criteria and would invite those who wish to comment about the revised policy to do so and encourage user involvement to support the decision-making process.

We would be grateful if you could complete a short questionnaire by 12.00pm on Monday 4th January 2016. Completing the questionnaire will take approximately 20 minutes.

Link to Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SchoolTransportConsultation2015

As well as completing this on-line survey, you may wish to forward other submissions concerning this revised policy. If this is the case, please send such responses by post to: The Corporate Development Officer Education Authority North Eastern Region Antrim Board Centre 17 Lough Road Antrim BT41 4DH

Or by email to: [email protected] before 12.00pm on Monday 4th January 2016.

Please also note other consultations which may be of interest to you: http://www.eani.org.uk/about-us/consultations/

Many thanks for your contributions.

Teresa

Teresa Connolly | Research and Support Officer | Central Management Support Unit Education Authority, Southern Region | 3 Charlemont Place | The Mall | Armagh BT61 9AX ☎: 028 3751 2222 | : [email protected] | www.eani.org.uk

please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

ITEM 9.3

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 28th October 2015

Responsible Officer Chief Executive

Date of Report 22 October 2015

File Reference

Legislation

Section 75 Compliant Yes x  NoX Not Applicable

Subject Independent Review of NILGA

Attachments Solace in Business Independent Review of NILGA

Solace in Business, part of the Solace Group (UK), was commissioned by the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) to carry out a small scale, independent review of the Association's current position and the part to be played in the wider future governance framework for Northern Ireland.

The aim of this independent research study was to assess and make recommendations on:

- The services and representation provided by NILGA - NILGA's sustainability - Areas for future focus and development, which would add value to local government - Ensuring performance is measured and communication with, from and to councils, is optimised.

The report is attached for information. Councils are asked to provide a high level response by Friday 6th November 2015, setting out “a corporate view regarding the strategic imperative and direction of the Review, together with additional comments in regard to any specific views in regard to the recommendations contained therein”.

The following comments are proposed on behalf of Ards and North Down Borough Council:

1. The Council recognises the need to have an “effective body that can provide an authoritative, representative voice for the local government sector in Northern Ireland…” It is also recognised that the primary purpose of NILGA is act as “…an honest broker of consensus across the LG sector.”

2. The Council agrees strongly with the proposal that NILGA “must do less, better” and that its funding model would be based on the delivery of a set of core functions. Any additional functions to be undertaken by the Association (such as elected member development and support, Economic Growth, EU Policies and Funding, Devolved Functions, Workforce Planning and Organisational Development, Innovation Hub, Getting Closer Together and Managing Risk) should be based on business cases. This is the best approach for NILGA in the short to medium term, perhaps an initial 12-18 month period, before any consideration is given to additional functions.

3. However, as stated in section 2 of the report, it is agreed that there is a need to provide a level of stability in terms of the funding arrangements as the current approach of annual funding is unreasonable. It is suggested that consideration is given to developing a funding arrangement for the core services which NILGA carries out, whereby funding is secured over a Council term, and paid on an annual basis.

4. It is proposed that any new functions should only be taken forward following detailed discussion with, and agreement by, the 11 constituent Councils and Solace. This process should commence from April 2017 at the earliest, which will still enable the working up of those proposals in time for any proposed implementation after the next LG elections in 2019.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council approves the comments on the Independent Review of NILGA Report as its response to the Consultation.

ITEM 10.2

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 28 October 2015

Responsible Officer Chief Executive

Date of Report 22 October 2015

File Reference CG11587

Legislation

Subject Armed Forces Community Covenant Conference, 4 November 2015 Attachments

An invitation has been received for the Council to send a representative to attend a one day conference to be held in the BIS Conference Centre, London, 4 November 2015.

The Council signed the Armed Forces Community Covenant on 18 September 2015 and was the second Local Authority in Northern Ireland to do so. This Conference would be an opportunity to learn from Councils across England, Scotland and Wales and engage around issues pertaining to delivering on the aims of the Covenant.

The Council’s Armed Forces “Champion” and representative on the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association (RFCA) is Alderman Keery.

There is no cost other than travel, accommodation and subsistence for attendance at this Conference.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council approves the attendance of Alderman Keery at the Armed Forces Community Covenant Conference in London on 4th November 2015 at a cost of travel, accommodation and subsistence only.

1

ITEM 10.3

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 28 October 2015

Responsible Officer Chief Executive

Date of Report 22 October 2015

File Reference CG12166

Legislation

Subject Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for NI – Annual Dinner Attachments

The Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for Northern Ireland (RFCA) Annual Dinner will be held on 29 October 2015 in Parliament Buildings, Stormont Estate.

The cost of attendance (ticket) is £40 and the Council representative on RFCA is Alderman Keery.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council approves the attendance of Alderman Keery at the RFCA Annual Dinner on 29th October at a cost of £40.

1

From: Suzanne Wylie Date: 12 October 2015 at 15:32:17 BST To: Anne Donaghy , Anthony Tohill , Brendan Hegarty , David Jackson , Jacqui Dixon , John Kelpie , Liam Hannaway , Roger Wilson , Stephen Reid , Theresa Donaldson Subject: Belfast City Council Resolution re Animal Cruelty

Dear Chief Executive

At its meeting on 1 October, Belfast City Council passed the following resolution:

“This Council regards cruelty against animals as a despicable crime; believes that more could be done to protect animals from cruelty and prevent reoffending. Therefore, this Council calls on the Minister for Justice to work with the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development and local councils to make it compulsory that those convicted of animal cruelty be prohibited from owning animals for a minimum period of time, establish and place those convicted of animal cruelty on a central register and outlaw the transferring of any animals to anyone on this register.”

I would be grateful if you could bring the resolution to the attention of your Council, with a request that it support the stance which Belfast City Council has taken in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Regards

Suzanne

Suzanne Wylie Chief Executive

Belfast City Council City Hall BELFAST BT1 5GS

Tel No: 028 9027 0202 Email: [email protected]

The information contained in or attached to this message is intended only for the people to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, storage, disclosure or copying of this information is unauthorised and prohibited. This information may be confidential or subject to legal privilege. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete the email from your inbox. The contents of this message do not represent the expressed view of Belfast City Council unless that is clearly stated. Belfast City Council cannot accept liability in the event that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and/or any attachments adversely affects the recipient's systems or data.

ITEM 14

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Council/Committee Council Meeting

Date of Meeting 28 October 2015

Responsible Officer Director of Organisational Development and Administration

Date of Report 29 September 2015

File Reference CG 2462B

Legislation

Section 75 Compliant Yes √ No Not Applicable

Subject Remembrance Day – Arrangements for Members’ Attendance at Services across the Borough

Attachments

The Council has received invitations to attend a range of Remembrance Day Services across the Borough. Details of arrangements for Remembrance Day Services on Sunday, 1 November 2015 (Groomsport) and Sunday, 8 November 2015 are laid out below. Members are asked to confirm which Service, if any, they intend to attend.

Bangor Members are asked to meet at the Bowling Pavilion, Ward Park, Bangor at 10am for robing. Car parking will be available within Ward Park. They will then process to the War Memorial for 10.40am for the Remembrance Day Service. Members are invited to attend a Church Service at Hamilton Road Methodist Church. Refreshments will be available after the Service at the Royal British Legion function room.

Holywood Members are asked to assemble for robing at Queen’s Leisure Complex (Youth Wing) at 10.15am. Refreshments will be available on arrival. They will then process to the War Memorial for Wreath Laying Ceremony at 11.00am Members are then invited to attend the Church Service at St Phillips and St James Parish Church, Church Road, Holywood. They should make their own way to the church. Refreshments will be served at Queen’s Leisure Complex after the Service.

Newtownards Robing will take place at the Royal British Legion, Court Square, at 9.30am after which members are asked to form up at Old Cross Street car park at 10.00am to parade to the Cenotaph, Court Square, Newtownards. Following a wreath laying ceremony at 10.20am, members will parade to First Newtownards Presbyterian Church for the Remembrance Service which commences at 11.30am. After the Church Service the parade will march back to the Royal British Legion. Refreshments will be available.

Donaghadee Members are asked to arrive at 10.15am at the Royal British Legion premises, Moat Street. The Parade will leave at 10.30am and process to the War Memorial where a wreath laying ceremony will take place. The parade will then proceed to High Street Presbyterian Church for an inter-denominational Service of Remembrance. Members will then be invited to join other dignitaries to take the salute en-route to the Church.

Comber Members are asked to meet at St Mary’s Church Hall, The Square, Comber, at 9.15am for robing. They will form up at 9.45am to march to the War Memorial in The Square at 10am, for a wreath laying ceremony. This will be followed by a Service at Second Presbyterian Church, Killinchy Street, Comber. Refreshments will be provided at the Church Hall after the service.

Millisle Members are asked to form up at the Royal British Legion, Churchhill Avenue at 10.40am to parade to the War Memorial for a short Act of Remembrance at 11.00am. The parade will then proceed to the Millisle and Ballycopeland Presbyterian Church, for the Service at 11.30am. Light refreshments will be served in the Legion after the service.

Groomsport The Groomsport Remembrance Day Service will be held on Sunday, 1 November 2015 at 2.45pm. The Walter Nelson Hall, Main Street, will be available from 2.00pm for robing and Councillors will parade from there to the War Memorial at approximately 2.30pm. There is no Church Service. Light refreshments will be served after the service at the Church of Ireland Parish Hall.

Members’ Robes Members’ robes will be taken to the services at Bangor, Holywood and Newtownards. Members attending other services are asked to collect their robes from the Town Hall, Bangor, no later than 3pm on Friday, 6 November 2015.

Robes will be available at The Walter Nelson Hall, Groomsport, for those members who indicate their intention to attend the Groomsport Service on 1 November 2015.

Those members requiring wreaths are asked to contact the Democratic Services Manager a week in advance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that Members:-

1. note the arrangements as set out above;

2. indicate on a list, which will be circulated at the meeting, which service they plan to attend;

3. note the above arrangements for robing and collect robes in advance, where appropriate. ITEM 15

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 28 October 2015

Responsible Officer Director of Organisational Development and Administration

Date of Report 14 October 2015

File Reference CG12172

Legislation N/A

Section 75 Compliant Yes No Not Applicable x

Subject Notice of Motions

Attachments Notice of Motions - Status Report

Please find attached a Status Report in respect of Notice of Motions.

This is going to be a standing item on the Council agenda each month 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.

Public Appointments

DE REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS

NORTHERN IRELAND COUNCIL FOR INTEGRATED EDUCATION (NICIE)

The Department of Education (DE) is seeking to appoint 4 members to the NICIE Board of Directors.

NICIE’s role is to promote integrated education and to perform a wide range of roles in facilitating the development of integrated education in Northern Ireland for the public benefit.

Membership

The NICIE Board comprises a Chairperson and up to 20 members. Four of the members are appointed by the Department and the other members are representative of various integrated education interests including schools, Principals and teaching staff.

Term of Appointment, Time Commitment and Remuneration

The Department intends to appoint the members for a 4 year term and the time commitment is anticipated to be approximately 1 to 2 days per month. Members are not remunerated but are eligible to claim travel and other expenses necessarily incurred while carrying out their board duties.

Skills and Experience

The Department members are appointed primarily to bring added breadth to the Board’s overall membership by drawing in individuals who are not necessarily associated directly with the education service but who have gained their experience from other backgrounds including business or commercial life and/or involvement in the community. Human resource, legal or media experience would be considered beneficial to the skills composition of the NICIE Board.

Applicants must meet all 3 experienced-based criteria which are: Governance and Finance; Strategic Decision Making; and Delivering Results and Engaging People.

Further details of the role and full selection criteria are set out in the application pack.

DE is committed to the principles of public appointments based on merit with independent assessment, openness and transparency of process. DE is also committed to providing equality of opportunity for all applicants and to improving diversity and eradicating under- representation on the boards of its Arm’s Length Bodies. Applications are welcomed regardless of religious belief, gender, disability, ethnic origin, political opinion, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or whether or not you have dependants. We would particularly welcome applications from non-traditional backgrounds, from the private and voluntary sectors and from women, people under 30 years of age, members of ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. The final decision on appointments will rest with the Education Minister.

Closing Date

The closing date for applications is Thursday 12 November 2015. Late applications will not be considered unless there are extenuating circumstances. CVs, letters or any other supplementary material will not be accepted in place of or in addition to the completed application form.

How to apply An Application Pack is available by contacting DE as follows:

Contact Names: Trish McBride or Barbara Baird Telephone: (028) 9127 7684/9860/9461 Voicemail: (028) 9127 9860 Text phone: 18001 (028) 9127 9461 Email: [email protected] Website: www.nidirect.gov.uk/public-appointment-vacancies

Or by writing to:

Education Governance Team Department of Education 4th Floor, Rathgael House 43 Balloo Road Rathgill Bangor BT19 7PR

Application packs can be made available in other formats e.g. Braille, large print, Irish language.