MAGHERAFELT DISTRICT COUNCIL
MINUTES OF Proceedings of a Meeting of Magherafelt District Council held in the Bridewell, 6 Church Street, Magherafelt on Tuesday, 14 October 2003. The meeting commenced at 7.30 pm.
Presiding: Miss K A Lagan
Other Members Present: R A Montgomery T J Catherwood P E Groogan O T Hughes J Junkin J F Kerr J A McBride Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea P H McErlean P McLean H E Mullan S O’Brien J P O’Neill G C Shiels
Officers Present: J A McLaughlin (Chief Executive) J J Tohill (Director of Finance and Administration) C W Burrows (Director of Environmental Health) W J Glendinning (Director of Building Control) T J Johnston (Director of Operations) Mrs A Junkin (Chief Executive’s Secretary)
Representatives from Other Planning Service - Bodies in Attendance: Mr Pat Quinn Mr Michael Francey Ms Ann Lockwood Mrs Helena O’Toole Mr Brian Lundy Mr Melvyn Bowman
1. MINUTES It was
PROPOSED by Councillor R A Montgomery, Seconded by Councillor P H McErlean, and
RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 (copy circulated to each Member) be taken as read and signed as correct.
2
2. MATTERS ARISING 2.1 Submitted a letter of thanks from MINUTES Lough Neagh Rescue for a donation towards the running costs of providing a rescue service on 56/10/2003 Lough Neagh, from the Council.
Noted.
2.2 Submitted a letter of thanks from the St Patrick’s College, Maghera on behalf of the Hogan team for the Council’s Reception held to honour the college on winning the Hogan Cup 2003.
Noted.
2.3 Submitted a letter from the Roads Safety Council of Northern Ireland inviting Members to attend the Annual Road Safety Council Family Church Service to be held on 16 November 2003 in St Anne’s Cathedral. Belfast.
2.3.1 The Chief Executive said that if any Member wished to attend they should contact his office.
Noted.
2.4 Submitted letter dated 30 September 2003 from the Infrastructure Manager, Water Service, Northern Division replying to Members’ questions raised at the Council Meeting held on 11 March 2003. Noted.
2.5 Submitted copy of the Northern Ireland Draft Priorities and Budget 2004-07 (copy handed out to each Member).
Noted.
2.6 Submitted copy of “The Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland” (copy handed out to each Member).
Noted.
3. RESOLUTION TO It was PROCEED “IN COMMITTEE” PROPOSED by Councillor J Junkin, Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: that the Council proceed “In Committee”. 3
Council “In Committee”
4. AREA PLAN This item was taken “In Committee”.
5. RESOLUTION TO It was PROCEED IN “OPEN COUNCIL” PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor J A McBride, and
RESOLVED: that proceedings be resumed in “Open Council”.
Proceedings in “Open Council”
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor J A McBride, and
RESOLVED: that the foregoing proceedings of the Council “In Committee” be and they are hereby approved and adopted.
6. BUILDING CONTROL The Director of Building Control presented the DEPARTMENT Department’s report for the period 3 September to 7 October 2003 (copy circulated to each 210/10/2003 Member).
5.1 Mr Glendinning stated that during the period of the report thirty-eight applications had been recommended for approval.
5.1.1 There were eight rejections:
MA/0989/0233 Mr David Rowe, 284 Ternageeragh Cottages Upperlands Extension to dwelling MA/0989/0235 Mr Jim Breen, 151 Glen Road Maghera Attic conversion MA/0989/0260 Mr Cathal Doyle 220 Sixtowns Road Draperstown Residential dwelling house
4
MA/0990/0158 Mr John McGlinchey, 6 Lisa dell Drive, Magherafelt Extension to dwelling MA/0990/0183 Moyola Thermal Insulation 10A Moyola Industrial Estate Castledawson Extension of Office MA/0990/0295 Mr Gordon Gibson 40 Killygullib Road, Kilrea Extension and alterations to dwelling MA/2001/0209 Miss Anna Kelly 34 Disert Road, Draperstown Dwelling and garage MN/2034/0059 Ms Nicola E J McClelland 13 Church Street, Magherafelt Extension to beauty salon
5.1.3 One hundred and twenty-eight applications had commenced on site and eighty-one applications were found to be complete in accordance with Building Regulations.
5.2 It was
PROPOSED by Councillor P McLean, Seconded by Councillor T J Catherwood, and
RESOLVED: that the report as submitted be adopted.
6. NAMING AND 6.1 Further consideration was given to the NUMBERING OF naming and numbering of units in Rainey Street STREETS car-park. These units were known as Units 1, 2 and 3 but the relevant legislation suggested that a postal address had to reflect the name that a location was actually known as.
6.1.1 The Chief Executive reported that after consultation with the two owners their choice of name was “Rainey Street Park”.
6.1.2 Accordingly, It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor S O’Brien
That the units be called “Rainey Street Park”.
6.2 Mr Glendinning requested that the Council consider naming two houses opposite 32 Mayogall Road, Magherafelt for Michael McWilliams. 5
The two names suggested were “Lagan Lane” and “Lagan Close”.
6.2.1 On consideration, it was
PROPOSED by Councillor S O’Neill, Seconded by Councillor P H McErlean, and
RESOLVED: that the two houses opposite 32 Mayogall Road, Magherafelt be named “Lagan Lane”.
7. PETROLEUM Submitted the following application for a LICENCES Petroleum Licence which was in order and recommended for renewal:
P. 36 Drumrainey Service Station, 5 Grange Road, Magherafelt – Mr Hugo McGuckin
7.1 It was
PROPOSED by Councillor J F Kerr, Seconded by Councillor J P O’Neill, and
RESOLVED: that the application as submitted for a Petroleum Licence, be renewed.
8. ENTERTAINMENTS Submitted the following application for an LICENCE Entertainments Licence which was in order and recommended for renewal:
E.127 Moyola Park Inn, 1 Bridge Street, Castledawson – Mr Peter Gallagher
8.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J F Kerr, Seconded by Councillor P H McErlean, and
RESOLVED: that the application as submitted for the renewal of an Entertainments Licence be granted.
6
9. STREET TRADING Submitted the following applications: LICENCES 9.1 A Street Trading Licence which was in order and recommended for approval:-
ST 18 Mrs Belguis Begum Sharif 52 Castletown, Templepatrick Car park and lay-by adjacent to the Coleraine Road, Maghera
9.1.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: that the application as submitted be approved.
9.2 Two applications for Temporary Street Trading Licences which were in order and recommended for approval:-
T 5 Aaron Ferguson 8a Aghaveagh Road, Cookstown for Christmas Lights on Hall Street, Maghera on Saturday 29 November 2003
T 6 Aaron Ferguson 8a Aghaveagh Road, Cookstown for Christmas Lights on Market Street/ Broad Street, Magherafelt on Friday 28 November 2003
9.2.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor T J Catherwood, and
RESOLVED: that the applications as submitted be approved.
10. LICENSING N.I. Submitted the following application for the ORDER 1996 provisional granting of a liquor licence for an off- licence
Lidl N.I. GambH – Castledawson Road, Magherafelt
Noted. 7
11. PLANNING SERVICE Consideration was given to the following MANAGEMENT BOARD submissions to be made to the Planning Service Management Board: 184/10/2003 11.1 H/2003/0058/O – Mr G Gordon: Councillor J P O’Neill reported that this application was to be withdrawn.
Noted.
11.2 H/2002/0476/O – Mr P Young; Councillor S O’Brien requested that the applicant be given three weeks to withdraw this application.
Noted.
11.3 H/2002/1164/O – Mr R J Mawhinney: It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that the following submission be forwarded to the Planning Service Management Board:
1. The proposed site itself has an area of 0.25 hectares with a proposal to provide a new single storey dwelling within that location it is accessed through an existing concrete lane which at present serves to other occupied dwellings.
2. It is envisaged that the new dwelling would be located at the southern end of the site as this end of the site is approximately 140m from the Leitrim Road and with the contours of the site the ground level is 1.5m lower than the northern boundary.
3. The siting of the dwelling will play a major factor on this proposed application:
1) Being at the southern end of the site takes the new proposed dwelling away from Nos 29, 34, 35 and previously approved site to the North which takes it away from reading through with these dwellings.
8
2) With the location being at the southern end of the site there is no critical viewpoint from the Leitrim Road, this is achievable through a number of reasons. The level of the site being lower than the road, a very mature native species hedgerow running parallel with the Leitrim Road, which is not required to be taken out for sight line purposes and also the layout of the Leitrim Road in conjunction with the site. Going from East to West there is a bend to the left and as the site proposed is approximately 140m to the right hand side of the road there is no straight view onto the site.
4. It was felt that due to the proposed dwelling location on the site, the contours of the land between the Leitrim Road and the site, the flow of the Leitrim Road in relation to the site, and the fact that Mr Mawhinney has no objection to being restricted to a bungalow, that the bungalow would not adversely impact on the countryside of the Leitrim Road area, but would rather nestle into the existing land form.
5. This application has the support of Magherafelt District Council.
11.4 H/2003/0362/O – Planning Direct Ltd: Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea advised that application was to be withdrawn.
Noted.
12. PLANNING SERVICE Submitted the Divisional Planning Service’s report dated 14 October 2003 (copy circulated to each 185/10/2003 Member). The following applications were taken into special consideration:-
12.1 New Applications:
H/2002/0927/F – DRD Water Service The Planning Officer advised that one objection had been received by the Environmental Heritage Service in connection with the proximity of the sewerage plant to an area of natural beauty and problems with the river corridor.
9
These matters had been being addressed by the Planning Service Environmental Unit and could be overcome. The Planning Opinion was still approval.
Noted.
H/2003/0222/F – Fermac Properties Ltd The Planning Officer advised that eleven objections and three petitions of objection had been received regarding this application. The main objections were in relation to zone impact, air quality, smell, noise, traffic, traffic hazard, loss of privacy, devaluation of property, loss of light, access to the countryside and danger to health. The planning opinion was still approval.
Noted.
H/2003/0551/F – Mr A Doyle The Planning Officer advised that there had been one objection to this application regarding the entrance. The issue had been resolved and the Planning Opinion was refusal.
Noted.
H/2003/0600/F – Mr D Kerr The Planning Officer advised that one objection had been received regarding the siting of the garage but the matter had been satisfactorily resolved.
Noted.
H/2003/0910/F – Bellaghy GAA The Planning Officer advised that one objection had been received stating that the entrance to this development was incorrect. The matter was still under consideration.
Noted.
Councillor J A McBride commented that the number of applications considered for the current year had reached 664, yet he noted that there were others that had reached the eight and nine hundreds and he wondered how this had happened. He asked if this was because these applications were easier processed.
10
In reply Mr Lundy, stated that Reserve Matters applications were easier to process and gave examples. He said that the Department operated a fast forward system to process applications and they had one particular officer who was responsible for the operation of the fast track process.
Noted.
12.2 Applications where the Opinion is Refusal:
H/2003/0450/O – Mr A McClean The Planning Officer advised that three objections had been received regarding the impact on natural conservation and traffic. Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor G C Shiels.
H/2003/0475/O – Mr A Kearney Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 27 October 2003 at 10.45 a.m. Councillors P H McErlean and O T Hughes to attend.
H/2003/0477/O – Mr J Mawhinney Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 27 October 2003 at 11.20 a.m. Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea to attend.
H/2003/0652/O – Mr M Rea Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Tuesday, 28 October 2003 at 12.15 p.m. Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea to attend.
H/2003/0657/O – P Duggan Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Tuesday, 28 October 2003 at 10.45 a.m. Councillor J A McBride to attend.
H/2003/0659/O – Mr P McAllister Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 27 October 2003 at 11.50 a.m. Councillor O T Hughes to attend.
H/2003/0661/O – Mrs B McAllister Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Tuesday, 28 October 2003 at 10.00 a.m. Councillor P H McErlean to attend.
11
H/2003/0820/O – Mrs Glendinning Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 27 October 2003 at 10.00 a.m. Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea to attend.
12.3 Applications Deferred from Previous Meeting:
H/2002/0512/O – Mr T Diamond Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor O T Hughes.
H/2002/0547/O – Mr N McKenna Deferred on the request of the Chairman, Councillor Miss K A Lagan.
H/2002/0597/F – Mr R Hastings Deferred on the request of Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea for discussions with DRD Roads Service.
H/2002/0632/F – Mr S Crossett Deferred on the request of Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea for an office meeting to be arranged.
H/2002/0846/O – Mr P Watters Deferred to allow Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea to allow for consultation with the Environmental Unit.
H/2002/0959/O – Mr V Mitchell Approval.
H/2002/1079/O – Mr A Mulholland Approval.
H/2002/1124/O – Mrs D Ferris Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor P H McErlean.
H/2002/1149/O – Mr D Laverty Approval.
12
H/2002/1150/O – Mr D Laverty Deferred. It was
PROPOSED by Councillor P H McErlean, Seconded by Councillor J A McBride, and
RESOLVED: that a submission be made to the Planning Service Management Board at the next meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 11 November 2003.
H/2002/1155/O – Mr J Kirk Deferred. It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that a submission be made to the Planning Service Management Board at the next meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 11 November 2003.
H/2002/1156/O – Cassidy Brothers Approval.
H/2003/0003/O – Mr L O Kane Approval.
H/2003/0026/O – Mr G McGuigan Deferred. It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that a submission be made to the Planning Service Management Board at the next meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday, 11 November 2003.
H/2003/0084/O – Mrs M Hurl Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor O T Hughes.
H/2003/0089/O – J O’Kane Deferred on the request of the Chairman, Councillor Miss K A Lagan for an office meeting.
H/2003/0133/O – Mr N Wright Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea.
13
H/2003/0137/O – Planning Direct Ltd Deferred on the request of Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea for an office meeting.
H/2003/0144/O, H/2003/0145/O, H/2003/0146/O & H/2003/0163/O - Planning Direct Ltd Withdrawn.
H/2003/0169/O – B Lagan Deferred on the request of the Chairman, Councillor Miss K A Lagan for an office meeting.
H/2003/0192/O – Mr D Moore Deferred. It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that a submission be made to the Planning Service Management Board at the next meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 11 November 2003.
H/2003/0202/O – Mr W Lamont Deferred. It was
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor R A Montgomery Seconded by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, and
RESOLVED: that a submission be made to the Planning Service Management Board at the next meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 11 November 2003.
H/2003/0216/O – Mr S O’Neill Deferred on the request of an office meeting by Councillor J A McBride.
H/2003/0217/F – J Downey Deferred on the request of Councillor P H McErlean.
H/2003/0224/O – Mr H Nugent Deferred on the request of Councillor P E Groogan for an office meeting.
H/2003/0226/O – Mr P McCann Deferred on the request of Councillor S O’Brien for an office meeting. 14
H/2003/0228/O – Mr S McPeake The Planning Officer requested that this application be withdrawn from the schedule as it had been included by error.
H/2003/0230/O – Mr H Nugent Deferred on the request of Councillor P E Groogan for an office meeting.
H/2003/0252/O – Mr A Mawhinney Deferred on the request of Councillor P H McErlean for an office meeting.
H/2003/0253/O – Mr R J Mawhinney Approval.
H/2003/0276/O – D Hepburn Deferred on the request of Councillor J A McBride for an office meeting.
H/2003/0284/O – Mr W Wylie Deferred. It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that a submission be made to the Planning Service Management Board at the next meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 11 November 2003.
H/2003/0294/F – Mr R Woods Approval.
H/2003/0295/O – Mr T Rainey Deferred on the request of Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea for an office meeting.
H/2003/0314/O – V McAllister Approval.
H/2003/0317/O – Mr A McGuigan Approval.
H/2003/0327/O – P Wilson Refusal. Councillor P E Groogan reported that this application was proceeding to an appeal.
15
The Planning Officer advised that an application had been omitted from the schedule
H/2003/0362 – Planning Direct Ltd The Planning Officer reported that this application had been withdrawn.
H/2003/0373/O – Miss A Rea Deferred on the request of Councillor P H McErlean.
H/2003/0379/O – Mr A Mawhinney Deferred on the request of Councillor P H McErlean.
H/2003/0396/O – A Palmer Deferred for an office meeting on the request of Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea.
H/2003/0434/O – Mr Loughlin Approval.
H/2003/0451/O – W Agnew Approval.
H/2003/0462/O – Mr Patrick McGurk & Miss Sharon Doherty Approval.
H/2003/0489/O – Mr M O’Connor Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor O T Hughes.
H/2003/0510/O – Mr I Eakin Deferred for an office meeting on the request of Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea.
H/2003/0524/O – Mr J Kelso Deferred on the request of Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, for an office meeting along with Councillor T J Catherwood.
H/2003/0626/O – Mrs R Steele Approval.
H/2003/0696/O – Mr A McCann Deferred for an office meeting on the request of Councillor J P O’Neill.
H/2003/0737/O – Y Henry Deferred for an office meeting on the request of Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea.
16
12.4 Applications Deferred from Previous Meeting and Still Under Consideration:
H/2003/0278/O – Mr M O’Kane Councillor J A McBride enquired about this application.
H/2003/0345/O – A Diamond Councillor O T Hughes enquired about additional information.
H/2003/0397/O – A Mullan Councillor O T Hughes enquired about additional information from the applicant.
H/2003/0690/O – Mr J Dillon Councillor P H McErlean enquired about additional information.
H/2003/0703/O – Mr P McLaughlin Councillor P H McErlean enquired about a possible alternative site and that an office meeting be arranged.
Councillor J A McBride enquired about application H/2003/0162 in the name of Mr Joe Gallagher for an agricultural shed at 45 Dunronan Road, Magherafelt.
In reply the Planning Officer advised that the application had not as yet come before the Council. The Department was consulting with the Road Service and were awaiting a reply regarding access.
12.5 Late Item:
H/2002/1016/F – Younger Homes Ltd The Planning Officer asked that this application be considered as an Approval. He said that although there had been one objection to traffic the Roads Service seemed to be content with the details. He requested the Council’s permission for Planning Service to go forward and process the application without coming back to Council.
This was agreed to.
17
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor R A Montgomery, Seconded by Councillor O T Hughes, and
RESOLVED: that Planning Service processes the application and if everything was in order they could issue an Approval without coming back to Council.
12.6 It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor T J Catherwood, and
RESOLVED: that the Council concur in the opinions expressed in the Planning Manager’s report dated 14 October 2003, subject to the above conditions and amendments.
The Planning Officers retired from the meeting at 9.20 p.m.
13. PLANNING APPEALS Submitted Bulletins prepared by the Planning COMMISSION Appeals Commission for the month of August 2003.
218/10/2003 13.1 The Chief Executive advised that there were no applications from the Magherafelt District in the August Bulletin.
Noted.
14. VODAFONE Submitted letter, map and schedule providing NETWORKS PLANS details of Vodafone’s existing and proposed sites within the Magherafelt District Council’s area and seeking a response to this communication as part of its continuous improvement programme (copies circulated to each Member).
The Chief Executive suggested that this item be noted as it was for information.
Noted.
15. ENVIRONMENTAL Mr Burrows submitted the report for September HEALTH DEPARTMENT 2003 (copy circulated to each Member). The following matters were taken into consideration:- 196/10/2003 18
15.1 The Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 Mr Burrows advised the Council that a sixteen page report had been compiled as a result of noise complaints from the residents of two domestic properties situated at Nos. 20 and 22 Blackpark Road, Toomebridge. He said that the source of the noise complaint arose from Creagh Concrete Products which was situated adjacent to both of the complainant’s properties. Mr Burrows also stated that the complainants had also made complaints of dust although his report only examined the noise aspect.
15.1.1 The complainants stated that they were disturbed by noise arising from Creagh Concrete works during the early morning and during the day. This had allegedly resulted in sleep disturbance and loss of enjoyment of use of the outdoor living areas to the rear of both properties.
15.1.2 Noise monitoring undertaken at the complainants’ properties indicated that the noise complained of consisted of a cocktail of noise from the following sources – block making machine, block banding machine, the agricultural products manufacturing shed, loading and unloading activities, vehicular activity and impact noise, for example, clashes and bangs. Although all or some of the noise sources could be present at a given time, the dominant sources of noise were the block making machine, the shrill beep of the block banding machine, and the noise from the agricultural products manufacturing shed.
15.1.3 Mr Burrows said that the complainants’ properties and Creagh Concrete Products Ltd were situated in a mixed residential and industrial area.
15.1.4 Mr Burrows further advised that an initial noise complaint was received by his department in July 2001 from a company called Envirocentre who were acting on behalf of Patrick Mulholland, 20 Blackpark Road, Toomebridge. The letter made reference to noise and dust arising from Creagh Concrete Products Ltd and asking the department to investigate the matters raised. The company was advised of the complaints by the department and also suggested that the company might wish to use the services of an acoustic consultant to give advice regarding the noise complaints. Some time was given for the company to find methods of addressing the noise complaint. 19
Mr Burrows reported that limited progress had been made by the company and a meeting was arranged for 14 December 2001 when the company and the department again discussed noise control options and advise was given to retain the services of a noise consultant. In December 2001 Mr Peter Mulholland, 22 Blackpark Road forwarded a letter to the department advising that he was disturbed by noise from early morning work activities at Creagh Concrete Products Ltd. The department held a further meeting with the company on 24 January 2002 at which Creagh Concrete Products Ltd confirmed the appointment of a noise consultant. RPS Planning and Environment were appointed to conduct a noise survey at the site boundary and at 20 Blackpark Road and to advise on suitable noise reduction measures. The report compiled by the consultant was received by the department on 15 February 2002. The report recommended the erection of a 12 foot high wall along the boundary of the site adjacent to Nos 20 and 22 Blackpark Road. It was agreed that the situation be reassessed by the department upon completion of the wall. In March 2002 the wall had been erected along approximately three-quarters of the boundary of the concrete works site adjacent to Nos 20 and 22 Blackpark Road.
15.1.5 Mr Burrows said that the department carried out noise monitoring, during the day, in March 2002 to determine if the erection of the wall had resulted in a reduction in the noise levels. The assessment indicated that the wall was not providing the attenuation predicted in the consultant’s report.
15.1.6 Discussions had continued with the company on how the noise levels from the factory could be reduced, particularly in the early morning. In August 2002 the company sent a letter to the department indicating that there would be no external manufacture of blocks on week days prior to 7.30 a.m. and that external block making would only take place on a Saturday between 7.30 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.
15.1.7 Mr Burrows said that a further meeting took place on 27 September 2002 between the department, a representative of Northern Group Environmental Health and Gerald and Seamus McKeague, director of Creagh Concrete Products Ltd.
20
Various noise control options were discussed along with the limiting of the times when block making would take place and it was suggested by the company that the re-siting of the block making operation was an option that could be considered further. This opinion would have to be examined on a cost benefit analysis basis.
15.1.8 Regarding the control of noise at source, the company advised that due to the need for the equipment to vibrate there were no known methods of controlling noise at source, and due to the need to gain access to the block making machine for loading it was possible to enclose the machine.
15.1.9 The department sought access to a routinely occupied bedroom in which the complainants were allegedly disturbed by noise in the early morning. Peter Mulholland, 22 Blackpark Road granted access to a front bedroom on the mornings of 13 – 15 August 2003, but Patrick Mulholland, 20 Blackpark Road to date had not permitted internal early morning noise monitoring in a bedroom.
15.1.10 Noise monitoring had been carried out on a number of occasions both before and after erection of the 12 foot barrier along approximately three-quarters of the boundary of the site to determine what attenuation the wall had provided. Mr Burrows stated that more recently noise monitoring had been carried out for the purposes of determining if a noise nuisance existed at the complainants’ homes during the day and in the early morning. The background noise levels were measured when the factory was operating and the recorded levels were then compared to the relevant standards. The results of which were set out in the report.
15.1.11 Mr Burrows reported that the department was of the opinion that it had not been able to determine the existence of a statutory noise nuisance with respect to early morning noise arising from Creagh Concrete Products Ltd due to lack of co-operation by the complainants.
15.1.12 Mr Burrows further reported on daytime noise disturbance alleged by the complainants and the methods of establishing noise nuisance.
21
15.1.13 Mr Burrows said that the department’s conclusion was that in this case it was considered that there was ample evidence (objective, subjective and duration), to establish beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of a statutory noise nuisance during the day due to noise arising from work activities carried out at Creagh Concrete Products Ltd. The finding was supported by the contentions of the complainants. The Environmental Health Department had made every effort, by informal means, to persuade the company into taking effectual action to remedy the situation. Promises to redress the problem had done little to improve the situation. Despite retaining the services of a noise consultancy the company had not followed through on the action recommended. Mr Burrows advised that the noise nuisance was actionable under Article 38(1) of the Pollution Control and Local Government (NI) Order 1978 and the means existed to reduce the noise levels arising from the works.
15.1.14 Mr Burrows recommended that the Council should serve a noise abatement and prohibition notice on Creagh Concrete Products Ltd under Article 38 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 in respect of the daytime noise nuisance.
15.1.15 Mr Burrows drew attention to a letter from Creagh Concrete Products Ltd dated 10 October 2003 (copy circulated to each Member) advising Mr Burrows’ department of the action taken by the company to minimise the level of any disturbance to the surrounding community. The company extended an invitation to Councillors to visit the site so that they could see the extent of what was going on. The company as a consequence of discussions with local Councillors had undertaken to plant trees at the back of the perimeter wall and construct a concrete wall in front of the conifers to completely enclose the works on that side. Creagh Concrete Products also enclosed a map outlining the work already completed and the proposed work to be carried out over the winter months.
15.1.16 The Chairman also referred to the letter sent to her from Newbridge Cultural and Development Committee dated 9 October 2003 (copy handed out to each Member) stating that in their opinion the problems caused by Creagh Concrete Products Ltd on the Blackpark Road had not ceased or even eased. 22
The Committee had hoped to attend the October Council Meeting, but had not fulfilled the procedures for doing so. They had organised a petition which was attached to the letter and requested that the matter be addressed. The letter concluded by saying that the matter had obvious health and amenity issues and welcomed the support of all Councillors in having the pollutions stopped. The Committee further pointed out that it was not their intention to halt the business of Creagh Concrete just the pollution caused by their works.
15.1.17 Mr Burrows advised the Council that they had three options:
1 Do nothing – which was not recommended as it could be considered malpractice 2 Extend the wall and take further measurements 3 Serve a noise abatement and prohibition notice on the company.
15.1.18 Councillor P E Groogan advised that he was a former employee of the firm and asked if it was necessary for him to declare an interest.
15.1.19 The Chief Executive stated that since he was no longer an employee this was not necessary.
15.1.20 Councillor P E Groogan stated that he had met with both parties. Creagh Concrete Products were doing their best in trying to deal with the problems and he recommended that the Council take the second course of action, that is, that the wall is extended and that the Environmental Health Officers should monitor the situation.
15.1.21 Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea said that this was a big problem. He had received genuine complaints from local residents. He understood that the firm was trying to correct the problem and said that probably the second option would be his choice, if it resolved the problem.
15.1.22 Councillor P McLean felt that the Council should be careful. This company was a large employer in the District and required time to resolve these issues. His preference was option 2. The company had to work to a timeframe. He suggested that perhaps the materials to build the wall were available but that the manpower was not available to carry out the work.
23
The company could not afford to have employees just standing-by waiting to build a wall, it took time.
15.1.23 It was suggested that the company be given up to a month to complete the building of the wall, but Mr Burrows advised that this would not give the department time to monitor the situation.
15.1.24 Councillor J A McBride said that this was a difficult situation. He had visited the plant, which was successfully run, and the company was in a position to expand, but there were high noise readings. The company did not do what they were recommended to do by the consultants. He said that there had been several complaints over the past eighteen months. He preferred option 2 but asked that the situation be speeded up. He asked Mr Burrows what the implications of each option would be.
15.1.25 In reply, Mr. Burrows explained that with option 2 there would be almost immediate action. With option 3 he explained that the abatement and prohibition notice would have to be served in due time and worded carefully allowing time to comply. There would be 21 days to appeal to the County Court against the noise abatement notice. It would then proceed to Court where a decision would be made by a Judge.
15.1.26 Councillor McBride commented that it was a lengthy procedure and he would go for the second option.
15.1.27 Councillor P H McErlean said that he too had visited the plant twice. There were health issues involved – cement dust and noise. He said that local residents who lived approximately 20 metres from the plant wanted action immediately. The company had time to do much more than they had carried out and whilst the noise could be reduced by certain operations not taking place at certain times, locals were being disturbed at 5.45 am and after 7.30 p.m. Any action taken had to be effective and seen to be effective.
15.1.28 Councillor O T Hughes said that he too was familiar with the situation. Complaints had been made from 2001 by Mr Peter Mulholland and Mr Pat Mulholland.
24
The company employed several hundred workers and he felt that the Council had to be careful of what signal it was giving to a major employer. He mentioned the finance involved in securing the perimeter and the employing of a firm of consultants. He also warned of a rumoured possibility of the Directors of the Company closing down part of the plant and relocating it in Dunloy, inconveniencing some 100-150 employees. He suggested that the firm be given six weeks to complete the work.
Councillor Hughes felt that the company had gone out of its way by building walls, planting trees, moving their block building operations, etc in an effort to accommodate local residents. He felt the Council could not afford to appear to be heavy- handed.
25.1.29 Councillor Rev McCrea said that he had not received complaints from either of the two residents mentioned, but wished to point out that the Council had been presented with a sixteen page report, letters and a petition and had to carry out its duty. He agreed that a reasonable time had to be given for action to be taken, but a local authority must carry out its duty. He said that not only were there problems with noise but there were problems with dust. He said that the Council’s Officers had tried to work with the company to deal with the problems. He enquired if the building of a wall was the right course of action and would it absorb the noise or would the noise bounce-off it?
25.1.30 Mr Burrows explained. He said that distance could be the most effective attenuation method.
25.1.31 The Chief Executive said that it was up to the company to carry out the work as promised.
25.1.32 Councillor R A Montgomery said that it would take some time for all the promises mentioned in the letter from Creagh Concrete to be carried out. He had sympathy with the local residents. He understood that the company was a large employer in the area and he would not wish to see employees being inconvenience by any removal of plant to another area. He suggested that any decision be deferred for one month in order to allow for Mr Burrows department to monitor for any improvements made.
25
25.1.33 Councillor J F Kerr suggested two months in order to give sufficient time.
25.1.34 Councillor Montgomery suggested that a report be given at the November Council meeting on any monitoring carried out as to whether any further action had been taken by Creagh Concrete Products Ltd.
25.1.35 Councillor J Junkin felt sure that out of some 500 workers employed at Creagh Concrete they could arrange for a wall to be built. It would not matter how much time the company was given, it would still require more time. He asked how could progress be monitored, it had been monitored over several months, yet work had still not been done. He supported the Director of Environmental Health recommendation in that the Council serve a noise abatement and prohibition notice on Creagh Concrete Products Ltd and let the Courts take the legal action from there.
25.1.36 Councillor McLean said that therein lay a problem and the Council had to be sympathetic to the manufacturing company. Irrespective of the 500 employees they did not have time for employees to build walls. The overall picture had to be looked at and time had to be given to the company. He spoke of the pressures on the manufacturing industry and their obligation to meet orders on time, yet they were under an obligation to sort the problem out.
25.1.37 The Chairman, Councillor Miss K A Lagan referred to the letter and petition and said that the Council had to be seen as acting fairly. She said that the noise was excessive and the readings were the highest she had witnessed. She stated that people should not have to listen to this noise and the company should have made some effort to carry out the recommendations made to them. Creagh Concrete had always been given an opportunity to direct attention to the problem but failed. She said that the Council should give them their last chance to put their house in order and trusted that within a month the Officers would be able to report on some efforts being made by the company.
25.1.38 Councillor Junkin again proposed that the Council take the advice of the Officer and adopt his recommendation.
26
25.1.37 The Chief Executive in an effort to clarify the situation said that the Council was then proposing to give Creagh Concrete Products Ltd one month to build the wall, so there would be nothing to report at the November meeting and then the Council would have to make a choice at the December meeting of the Council.
25.1.38 Councillor Junkin enquired if the noise worse on certain days.
25.1.39 Mr Burrows explained that the noise depended on weather conditions and there was a difference between a windy day and a calm day. He said that a calm day in summer or winter had no bearing but if the wind was blowing towards you it would affect the levels of noise.
25.1.40 Councillor Rev McCrea emphasised the fact that the Officer’s recommendation still stood, that is, to serve a noise abatement and prohibition notice on Creagh Concrete Products Ltd should they fail to act. Failure to act was serious for the Members of the Council not the Officers.
25.1.41 Councillor O T Hughes referred to Page 9 of the report and to the fact that there was no indication of a statutory noise nuisance existing.
25.1.42 It was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor J P O’Neill, and
RESOLVED: that the Council adopt option 2 and give Creagh Concrete Products Ltd one month to build the wall, and that the Environmental Health Department monitor the situation and report at the December meeting when, if the problem has still not been resolved, then the Council would have to adopt option 3 to serve a noise abatement and prohibition notice on Creagh Concrete.
Mr Burrows further agreed that a report on dust from Creagh Concrete Products Ltd would be prepared for submission to the November meeting of the Council.
15.2 Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878 Mr Burrows reported that two applications had been received from:
27
15.2.1 Mr Gavin McGuckin, 6 Craigmore Road, Maghera (landlord) had applied to the Council to have a dwelling at 19 Craigadick Park, Maghera inspected.
An inspection of the property revealed that following matters were considered prejudicial to the health of the occupants of the dwelling:-
1 Penetrating dampness to the dwelling via decayed front and rear door and frame 2 Penetrating dampness to the dwelling via decayed woodwork to the windows of the rear bedroom and right gable bedroom 3 Penetrating dampness to the dwelling due to leaks in eavesgutters and downpipes to front and rear roof.
Mr Burrows recommended that the Council issue a Statutory Abatement Notice on the owner requiring him to carry out the following remedial work within six months.
1 Replace the front and rear doors and frames 2 Replace the windows to the rear bedroom and right gable bedroom 3 Replace the eavesgutters and downpipes to the front and rear roof.
15.2.2 Mr Sean Henry, 2 Brackalislea Road, Draperstown (landlord) to have his dwelling at 3 Brackalislea Road, Draperstown inspected.
An inspection revealed that the following matters were considered to be prejudicial to the health of the occupants of the dwelling:
1 Penetrating dampness to the dwelling via ill- fitting windows to the living room, kitchen, bedroom (rear extension) front middle bedroom and front right bedroom 2 Penetrating dampness to the dwelling via ill- fitting front and rear doors and frames.
Mr Burrows recommended that the Council consider issuing a Statutory Abatement Notice on the owner requiring him to carry out the following remedial work within six months.
1 Replace the windows to the living room, kitchen, bedroom (rear extension) front middle bedroom and front right bedroom 2 Replace the front and rear doors and frames. 28
15.2.3 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor T J Catherwood, and
RESOLVED: that the Council issue Statutory Abatement notices on the landlord/owners requiring them to carry out the recommended remedial work within six months.
15.3 The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations (NI) 2002 Drinking Water – Authorised Departures Mr Burrows informed the Members that in accordance with Regulation 37 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations (NI) 2002 the Water Service had made applications to the Drinking Water Service for Authorised Departures, concerning the quality of water supplied within the District as follows:
• Moyola supply are in relation to Trihalomethane • Lough Fea in relation to Aluminium • Mormeal in relation to both parameters as it was jointly supplied by Moyola and Lough Fea Water Treatment Works.
Mr Burrows said that copies of the applications had been served on the District Council together with the statement, scheme and summary of proposed remedial action. The District Council could make representations to the Department of Regional Development in connection with the applications within 30 days.
15.3.1 Mr Burrows referred to his report in which he had provided information on the regulatory framework, the background, and summaries of aluminium and trihalomethanes. He further stated that a £6.2 million scheme had started at Lough Fea Treatment Works in January 2000 and was due to be fully commissioned in July 2004. This would enable the treatment plant to reduce the level of aluminium in the water to the national requirement of 200 ug/1. It would be eight months before the whole area would comply.
29
15.3.2 Mr Burrows also added that a capital scheme valued at £10 million was planned for Moyola Treatment Works to commence in October 2005 with a completion date of October 2009 to deal with the issue of trihalomethanes.
15.3.3 He further explained that both these chemicals were by-products of water treatment and that the authorised departures were necessary to allow the Water Service to continue to supply water to the District from both Moyola and Lough Fea Treatment Works. He recommended that the Council accept the temporary derogations from the wholesomeness requirements contained in Regulation 4 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations (NI) 2002.
15.3.3 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J Junkin, Seconded by Councillor J P O’Neill, and
RESOLVED: that the Council adopt the recommendation of the Director of Operations and accept the temporary derogations from the wholesomeness requirements contained in Regulation 4 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations (NI) 2002.
15.4 Eat Safe Award Scheme Mr Burrows advised that at the June monthly meeting he had reported that the Food Standards Agency and Chief Environmental Health Officers Group, together with representatives of the Consumer Council and the business sector, had developed an award scheme for catering businesses which recognised those that achieved the highest standards of food hygiene. The award is known as the “Eat Safe Award” was officially launched on 6 June 2003.
15.4.1 Mr Burrows said that once a successful business had been identified, the details were forwarded to the Food Standards Agency. In the Magherafelt area all restaurants defined as a catering establishment open to the general public, providing facilities for the consumption of food on the premises, were provided with information on the award and the necessary criteria to achieve it.
30
15.4.2 Mr Burrows reported that one restaurant inspected under the enhanced criteria had met all the requirements necessary for the Eat Safe Award and it was recommended that Gardiners Restaurant, 9 Garden Street, Magherafelt be awarded the Eat Safe Award.
15.4.3 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor P McLean, Seconded by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, and
RESOLVED: to accept the Director of Environmental Health’s recommendation.
15.4.4 Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea congratulated Gardiners Restaurant on receiving the Eat Safe Award.
15.5 Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2001 Mr Burrows explained that these regulations required all butchers’ shops and other premises selling unwrapped raw meat and ready to eat food to final consumer to be licensed. All premises requiring a licence had applied for renewal of their existing licence and had been inspected by Officers of the department to ensure that they continued to meet the licensing conditions.
15.5.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor J Junkin, and
RESOLVED: that the following premises have their butcher’s licence renewed for a further year:
Meadowlane Meats, Meadowlane Shopping Centre, Magherafelt J Overend, 6 Main Street, Bellaghy P & N Quality Meats, 114 Main Street, Maghera J C Stewart, 1 Union Road, Magherafelt Centra, 61 St Patrick Street, Draperstown Clady Quality Meats, 246 Mayogall Road, Clady R Mawhinney & Son, 2 Main Street, Castledawson B Shivers, 6 Castle Street, Bellaghy Meat at Regans, 33 St Patrick Street, Draperstown McKees, 26 Main Street, Maghera McKees, 78 Main Street, Maghera Gerry’s Meats, 22 Rainey Street, Magherafelt 31
Muldoon’s Costcutters, 27-29 William Street, Bellaghy DSP Supermarkets Costcutters, 107-111 Main Street, Maghera McAtamney’s Butchers, 50 Main Street, Maghera T McClenaghan Family Butcher, 20 Market Street, Magherafelt Great Beef & Co, 43 Main Street Castledawson Hutton Meats, 5 Meeting Street, Magherafelt Dunnes Stores, Meadowland Shopping Centre
Plus it was also recommended that two new premises be granted butchers’ licences:
Diamond Meats, 30 High Street, Draperstown Supervalu, 16 Coleraine Road, Maghera.
15.6 Mr Burrows sought the Council’s permission to raise an additional item and this was unanimously agreed to.
15.7 Food Service Mr Burrows said that a recent audit of the Health and Safety at Work function had been carried out by Officers from Northern Group Systems. This audit identified the need for extra officer resources to be provided to comply with this recommendation and also with guidelines expected to be published shortly by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland. Following this audit an internal review was undertaken and from this it was agreed that Mrs Lucia Cassidy should share the responsibility for the Health and Safety/Licensing functions with Mrs Maxine Young. This was considered to be the best option in the short term at least as both were employed on a Job Sharing basis.
15.7.1 Mr Burrows advised that the Food Service was required by the Food Standards Agency to have a designated Food Officer who was both competent and experienced enough to lead this service. Mrs Cassidy was the present Food Officer and to permit this re-structuring to take place there would have to be a new designated Food Officer. Mr Burrows therefore recommended that the Council consider designating Miss Catriona McGrath, who had demonstrated the necessary competency and experience, as the Food Officer to comply with the Food Standards Agency’s requirements.
32
15.7.2 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor P E Groogan, Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: that Miss Catriona McGrath be designated the Food Officer to comply with the Food Standards Agency’s requirements.
15.8 Councillor J Junkin referred to the report on skin risks from sunbed use and welcomed the long awaited recommendation against the use of sunbeds, etc. and had recognised that there was no safe level of solarium use. He further referred to recent media reports concerning ice-cubes and the alleged 44% of coliforms found in ice-cubes used in restaurants and pubs. He asked Mr Burrows if it was possible to monitor just to see what the situation was like locally.
15.9 Mr Burrows said that it was possible and monitoring the situation locally would be arranged.
15.10 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: to adopt the remainder of the report, which was for the information of Members.
16. OPERATIONAL Submitted report by the Director of Operations for SERVICES the month of September 2003 (copy DEPARTMENT circulated to each Member).
322/10/2003 Development Services:
16.1 Magherafelt Arts Trust – BBC Music Live Event Mr Johnston advised the Council that Magherafelt Arts Trust had been asked to submit proposals that could be included in next year’s BBC “Music Live Event” to be held on 1 May 2004. The Art Trust in response to this request had suggested an open air all-day festival of local music to be held at Meadowbank Recreation Centre. This festival would include all aspects of music and would conclude at 10.00 p.m. with a selection of artists presenting a new theme tune specially composed for the Magherafelt area.
33
It was felt that the event would give local artists an opportunity to display their talents and promote the Magherafelt area to a national audience.
16.1.1 Mr Johnston said that it was estimated that the cost of the event would be £20,000. The Arts Trust was able to commit £5,000 and it would be applying to the Arts Council for a further £5,000, leaving a shortfall of £10,000. Magherafelt Arts Trust was requesting the Council to fund the shortfall.
16.1.2 Councillor G C Shiels outlined the background to the event and how fundamental it was to all twenty-six Councils in Northern Ireland as it was understood that this BBC’s Music Live event would be run exclusively in Northern Ireland. He said that it would be a cross- community event and would give local artists an opportunity to perform.
16.1.3 Councillor J F Kerr said that he was an Arts Trust member and was in favour of this event. This was a huge event and would be broadcast nationally. Firstly, it was one way of engaging all and provided a platform for local talent from all communities. Secondly, it was a platform for promoting the area. This was quite a large event and event management was required. He asked that the Council support the Arts Trust by providing financial help with their proposal.
16.1.4 Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea said that the target was too high. The Council had to be careful with ratepayers’ money. £10,000 was a lot of money and there were no guarantees with little coverage provided and it could be setting a precedent. He felt that if Magherafelt Arts Trust wished to promote the event then it should stand alone and provide the necessary funding.
16.1.5 The Chief Executive said that regardless of the BBC the Council could be setting a precedent in providing the shortfall for the event.
16.1.6 Councillor Kerr said that the Magherafelt Arts Trust was an integral part of the Council in that it promoted the arts and the Council had a duty of care to provide a service for the arts as it had for other physical activities. He felt that the Council should have a serious look at its spending on the arts and asked how it could stand alone.
34
16.1.7 Mr Johnston in reply stated that the Arts Advisory Committee used to be an integral part of the Council. The Council now contributed some £20,000 per annum to the Arts Trust to help promote the arts. He said that the Magherafelt Arts Trust were an outside body in the same way as Sperrins Tourism Ltd. The Council organised its own events.
16.1.8 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that the Council do not fund the shortfall of £10,000 for an open-air all-day festival organised by Magherafelt Arts Trust as it had misgivings about such an amateur festival and that they should find alternative funding.
16.2 Music Classes Mr Johnston referred to his report on music classes being organised by Magherafelt Arts Trust at the Bridewell, Magherafelt and Maghera Leisure Centre which commenced in October 2003.
Noted.
16.3 Play Areas Mr Johnston confirmed that the play areas at Culnady and Inishrush had been completed and opened to the public. The play area at Clady had been installed and work on the site at Upperlands had commenced. It was expected that the play area at Upperlands would be opened to the public in late October, early November 2003.
Noted.
Leisure Services:
16.4 Mr Johnston reported that September had been a good month for Leisure Services with increases of 12% compared with the same month in the previous year.
Noted.
35
16.5 Mr Johnston drew attention to Page 3 of his report on Child Protection Awareness Training Sessions which had been attended by Leisure Centre coaches. As a result of this training it was recommended that a policy be implemented prohibiting:
- the use of digital imaging equipment (cameras and mobile telephones) in all leisure facilities
- all photography unless approved in writing by the Leisure Centre management
- the use of mobile telephones in toilets or changing areas.
16.5.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor J Junkin, and
RESOLVED: that a policy be implemented prohibiting the use of digital imaging equipment in all of the Council’s leisure facilities, all photography unless approved in writing by the Leisure Centre management and the use of mobile telephones in toilets and in changing areas.
16.6 Sunbeds Mr Johnston referred to his report on sunbeds in the Council’s Leisure Centres in Magherafelt and Maghera and whilst the centres had conformed to recommended usage levels as defined by the Sunbed Association, etc., he had to report that in recent months there had been an increase in the concern, and following the example of other Councils, it was recommended that in light of the facts and findings of the Council the use of sunbeds should no longer be offered in any of the Council’s leisure facilities.
16.6.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor J A McBride, and
RESOLVED: that the Council no longer offer the use of sunbeds at any of the Council’s leisure facilities with immediate effect.
36
Technical Services:
16.7 Vandalism Mr Johnston reported on the number of acts of vandalism which had occurred in the District.
16.8 Bus Shelters Mr Johnston reported that a new Enterprise Ulster type bus shelter had been erected on the Ballynease Road, Bellaghy.
16.8.1 Mr Johnston further advised that Enterprise Ulster had informed him that they were no longer manufactured bus shelters, in further an alternative type of shelter would have to be used.
Noted.
16.8.2 Mr Johnston advised that he had received a request for a bus shelter to be erected on the Oldtown Road, Bellaghy, opposite the junction with Killyberry Road. It was estimated that nine children used the stop each morning while they waited on the bus for school. Mr Johnston reported that Roads Service had approved the site and it was suggested that another shelter on the Oldtown Road which was no longer used, could be transferred to this site.
16.8.3 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J P O’Neill, Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: to approve the erection of a bus shelter on the Oldtown Road junction with the Killyberry Road, Bellaghy and that another shelter on the Oldtown Road which was no longer used be transferred to this site.
16.8.4 Mr Johnston reminded the meeting that the Council had agreed to erect a large bus shelter on the green at High Street, Draperstown. Workspace had recently indicated that it would provide £4,000 funding towards the project. It was estimated that the cost of the preferred shelter was in the region of £10,000. Mr Johnston enquired if the costings were acceptable to the Council and if they were then work could proceed with the erection of this shelter.
37
16.8.5 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor P E Groogan, and
RESOLVED: to accept the costings as outlined by the Director of Operations and that work should commence with the erection of the bus shelter on the green, High Street, Draperstown.
16.9 Planters Mr Johnston advised that several Senior Citizens living on the Magherafelt Road, Draperstown had again requested that the Council remove the concrete planters sited on the footpaths adjacent to their homes. The Department of Regional Development, as the owners of the footpath, had been contacted regarding this matter and they were awaiting the Council’s decision.
16.9.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor P E Groogan, Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: that the Council agree to remove the plants at Magherafelt Road, Draperstown as requested by several senior citizens living in the locality.
16.10 Mr Johnston also reported on unofficial dumping and bulky household collections.
Noted.
16.11 Yellow Pages Recycling Mr Johnston stated that over the past number of years the Council had organised a very successful Yellow Pages Recycling Competition for local schools. The schemes had been supported annually by Yellow Pages and had proved to be a success. New Yellow Pages would be delivered at the end of November, early December and again he was requesting that the Council would support the schools’ competition. It was expected that Yellow Pages would again financially support the local schools’ competition.
38
16.11.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: that once again the Council would financially support the Yellow Pages Recycling Competition for local schools.
Waste Management:
16.12 Mr Johnston reported on the Schools’ Waste Education Programme and on the Brown Bins kerbside collection for organic waste.
16.13 Recycling Rates Mr Johnston reported that recent bi-annual waste management returns by Kirk McClure Morton to the Environmental Heritage Service for the first six months of 2003 had shown a big increase in the recycling rates in Magherafelt District. They had increased from less than 5% to approximately 17%. He said that this could be contributed to the introduction of the blue wheel-bin dry recycling scheme. It was expected that the figure would increase further in the next six months with the introduction of manned civic amenity sites, additional recycling points and the extension of the brown bin composting scheme.
Noted.
16.14 North West Group Sub-Committee Meeting at Letterkenny Mr Johnston referred to the meeting held on Thursday, 25 September 2003 at Letterkenny the purpose of which was to allow colleagues in Donegal County Council to present their Geographic Information Service for site selection. He said that whilst the service could be adapted for any type of site selection. The main purpose of the presentation was to show how Donegal used the service to identify potential waste disposal sites within their area and to assess if the service would be of benefit to the North West Group of Councils in their efforts to procure a new waste disposal site.
39
16.14.1 Mr Johnston went on to state that whilst Magherafelt District Council were projected to meet the 25% recycling target and indeed to top the Group recycling figures by 2005 concern was expressed that only one other Council from within the Group was projected to meet these targets. It was pointed out by the Consultants that these Councils would have to review their position sooner rather than later.
16.14.2 Councillor J Junkin said that he appreciated the comments made by Mr Johnston and said that he was worried about the North West Group and how the other Councils involved would catch up with Magherafelt. He said that he had attended the meeting and fully endorsed the comments made regarding the Council’s achievements on recycling. He was pleased to see that Magherafelt was one of the Councils expected to meet the targets in 2005. At the meeting in Letterkenny he had, however detected what seemed to be a lack of interest from the Members of other Councils. In fact, in his opinion, there seemed to be a lack of urgency or understanding of the issues regarding waste management. He wondered if they had been fully briefed by their officers as they did not seem to fully understand the importance of meeting targets, infraction proceedings, etc.
16.14.3 The Chief Executive in reply stated that the Officers of the Council had also concerns regarding a number of issues and in particular the matter of the Dry Recyclables Contract that was currently out to tender. They had felt that because of the deficiency in the market, rather than ask for one contractor to service the entire North West Group of Councils, it would have been advisable to have a number of contractors, provided all the Councils throughout the North West area were provided with a service. The other Councils had however opted for the one contractor route and he felt that this could result in no contractor being able to deliver the service, or a contractor submitting a price that would be higher than expected. He stated that if the Council found itself left with nowhere to go prior to the next Council meeting he would call a meeting of party leaders.
16.14.4 Mr Johnston stated that they also had a problem regarding grant-aid form the EHS in that a Council could not carry over expenditure.
40
A situation had developed whereby grant-aid could be carried over into the following years for projects that were in the pipeline, yet Councils that had spent money on projects and had them in place could not carry over expenditure. Mr Johnston felt that this meant that progressive Councils which had spent money up-front, in order to introduce recycling initiatives were being compromised.
16.14.5 Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea said that other Councils appeared not to have budgeted appropriately, unlike Magherafelt District Council, and now found that there would have to be a steep rise in rates to meet targets. The main issue was that the Department should not penalise progressive Councils. He proposed that the Department be written to on this matter and he requested a copy of the letter sent.
16.14.6 Councillor R A Montgomery enquired if infraction proceedings were introduced could Councillors be held responsible and could they be surcharged.
16.14.7 In reply, the Chief Executive said yes.
16.14.8 It was unanimously agreed that a letter be written to the Department regarding these matters.
16.15 Mr Johnston sought permission to raise an additional item and this was agreed to.
16.16 East Sperrins Waymarked Way Mr Johnston advised the Members that in accordance with the Council’s instructions he had written to CAAN seeking clarification regarding a number of issues relevant to the walkway. He stated that CAAN had been specifically asked to define the exact route, the amount of construction work and the level of maintenance expected from the Council, who would insure the route after the initial three years, and would CAAN be prepared to indemnify the Council from any claims that could arise because of the Council’s involvement in the route. CAAN was asked to respond by the 5 October 2003.
16.16.1 Mr Johnston advised that CAAN did not respond until 13 October 2003. In this response they stated that the walkway was to be a Council led project, therefore CAAN were not in a position to design the route. 41
They went on to say that CAAN would be responsible for insuring all waymarked ways for the initial three years and perhaps thereafter, but the network was not in a position to indemnity the Council as requested. They did, however, state that it was essential that the route had a firm maintenance commitment from the Council before it could be approved.
16.16.2 Mr Johnston said that in concluding their response CAAN stated that they had considerably extended their deadline for inclusion in this project and given both the Sperrins Tourism Ltd and Magherafelt District Council every opportunity to confirm their commitment to it. They therefore felt that it was unrealistic that the East Sperrins Way could be developed to the expected standards within the current timescale, however if at a later date further funding was available they would be happy to review the project.
16.16.3 Mr Johnston informed the Members that in his view the above statement was totally inappropriate. The Officers of the Council had held a meeting with CAAN in June to seek clarification on this matter and had waited until 13 October 2003 for any type of response. Mr Johnston felt that for CAAN to say that the Council had every opportunity to commit to the project was beyond belief when they did not respond to any of the issues raised at the meeting and in numerous follow-up telephone calls made to their organisation. It did, however, seem that CAAN had decided that rather than clarify the issues they had decided not to proceed with the project which basically meant that the Council did not have to take any decision on whether or not to support the project.
16.16.4 Councillor R A Montgomery questioned if there ever was a route in the first place.
16.16.5 Councillor J A McBride commented that it was indicative that these routes fell because of insurance issues and it was somewhat ridiculous that only one group was prepared to indemnify.
42
16.16.6 It was
PROPOSED by Councillor T J Catherwood, Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: that the report as submitted by adopted.
17. PAYMENT OF Submitted Statement of Expenditure setting out ACCOUNTS payments to be made during the month of October 2003 (copy circulated to each Member). 10/2003 17.1 The schedule provided for £586,456.13 out of the Revenue Account and £589,246.13 out of the Capital Account.
17.2 It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor T J Catherwood, and
RESOLVED: that the Statement of Accounts as submitted for October be approved.
18. CONFERENCES AND Consideration was given to the nomination of AND COURSES of delegates to attend:
268/10/2003 18.1 The Rural Affairs Summit: Conference organised by The Rural Development Council to be held in The Manor House Hotel, Enniskillen on 27 and 28 October 2003 (details circulated to each Member).
18.1.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: that Councillor P H McErlean attend The Rural Affairs Conference.
18.2 The Power of Well Being: The Northern Ireland Context Conference to be held in the Craigavon Civic Centre on 3 November 2003 (details circulated to each Member).
43
18.2.1 On consideration it was unanimously agreed that Councillor R A Montgomery and the Council’s representative on NILGA – Councillors T J Catherwood, J J Kelly, J F Kerr and the Chairman, Councillor Miss K A Lagan attend.
18.3 Building Control Conference: “Conserving Our Built Heritage” convention to be held in The Radisson Roe Hotel, Limavady on 13 and 14 November 2003 (details circulated to each Member).
18.3.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor R A Montgomery Seconded by Councillor T J Catherwood, and
RESOLVED: that the Director of Building Control, Mr Ian Glendinning and Councillors P McLean and G C Shiels attend the Building Control Convention.
18.4 LAMA Conference: The Chief Executive advised that he had received details of the Annual LAMA Conference which was to be held in the Great Southern Hotel, Galway on the 7 and 8 November 2003.
18.4.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor P H McErlean, and
RESOLVED: that Councillor R A Montgomery attend the LAMA Conference.
19. CONSULTATION The following consultation documents were DOCUMENTS submitted:
195/10/2003 a) Letter and Draft Betting and Gaming (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and Explanatory Memorandum published by the Department of Social Development for consultation, seeking comments by 1 December 2003 (copies circulated to each Member).
b) Letter and Consultation Paper on the Review of Planning (Use Classes) Order (Northern Ireland) 1989 prepared by the Planning Service seeking a response by 16 January 2004 (copy circulated to each Member). 44
The Chief Executive advised that the Council’s response would be the Corporate View on the Area Plan. c) Letter and Consultation Paper on the Review of Permitted Development Rights prepared by the Planning Service seeking a response by 23 January 2004 (copy circulated to each Member). d) Letter and Consultation document on the Recovery of Health Services Costs in Cases Involving Personal Injury Compensation prepared by the Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety seeking comments by 28 November 2003. e) Letter and Consultation Paper on Developing a Strategy for Children in Need prepared by the Department of health, Social Services and Public Safety seeking comments. f) Letter and Consultation Paper on Reform of the Common Agriculture and Rural Development seeking comments by Friday, 5 December 2003. g) Letter and Consultation Paper on a Proposal for a Draft Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order in Council seeking comments not later than 14 November 2003 prepared by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. h) Letter and Consultation Paper on the location of electoral pilot schemes at European Parliamentary and local elections in 2004 prepared by the Electoral Commission seeking comments by Wednesday 12 November 2003. i) Consultation document on The Recovery of Health Services Costs in Cases Involving Personal Injury Compensation seeking a response by 28 November 2003. j) Consultation Paper prepared by the Department of Social Development on Bye-laws Regulating the Consumption of Intoxicating Liquor in Public Places seeking a response by 15 December 2003 (copy circulated to each Member).
45
Mr Johnston advised the Members that in accordance with the Council’s instructions a list of all the streets and roads throughout the District that were subject to the 30 mph speed limits had been compiled (copy circulated to each Member) and he welcomed any comments. Mr Johnston said that it would now be necessary to ask the PSNI to declare or state in writing that there was a recognised problem in these areas.
If this were forthcoming the Department would be asked, as the landowners, for permission to designate these areas as “Alcohol Free Zones”.
Mr Johnston stated that before he could ask these questions he would refer the Members to Page 8 and Part 4 of the Consultation document where he felt there were a number of relevant statements.
The first pointed out that it had been the Department’s policy that a District Council should only designate places where there had been a recognised problem. It was, however, felt that offenders could avoid detection by simply moving to a non-designated place. Mr Johnston stated that it seemed that many respondents to the information gathering exercise had suggested that a Council should be allowed to prohibit the consumption of intoxicating liquor in public places throughout an entire district, that is a blanket ban. However, the Working Group that compiled the document, whilst acknowledging the attraction of a blanket ban, accepted legal opinion received by the Department that using local bye-laws to introduce a blanket ban might be regarded as unreasonable. The view of the Department was that in light of these findings the policy should remain unchanged in that bye-laws should only prohibit the consumption of intoxicating liquor in places where there was a recognised problem.
Mr Johnston asked, in view of these statements, if the Council still wished to designate all streets and roads within the 30mph speed limits as previously resolved by the Council. He said that he was being advised that it was currently appropriate to do so, however, if the Consultation document was adopted in its present format the Council would have to take on board the fact and remove from the Council’s schedule streets and roads where it could not be established that a recognised problem existed.
46
It was agreed that Mr Johnston takes the necessary action.
k) Letter and Consultation document on Childhood Injury Prevention Strategy and Action Plan 2004-2009 prepared by Homefirst Community Trust seeking comments by 19 December 2003.
19.1 It was resolved that if any Member or Party Grouping wished to comment they should submit their views to the Chief Executive who would then pass them on to the appropriate body.
20. ROADS SERVICE Submitted the following:
279/10/2003 20.1 Letter dated 19 September 2003 proposing parking bays at St Patrick’s Street, Draperstown along with a schedule and map (copies circulated to each Member).
Noted.
20.2 It was agreed that the Roads Service should present its Progress Report on their Programme of Work for 2003/2004 at the November meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 11 November 2003 at 7.30 p.m.
21. NOTICE OF MOTION In accordance with his Notice of Motion Councillor J F Kerr proposed:- 212/10/2003 “That this Council calls on the British Secretary of State to disclose full information on and details of collusion between British state agencies and the killers of residents of this Council area.
And further
That this Council expresses its concern to the Secretary of State that this collusion is a result of a policy of state sponsored murder of citizens
And further
That this Council calls for the rescinding of this policy and the dismantling of the agencies which executed the policy.”
The motion was seconded by Councillor J P O’Neill. 47
Councillor J F Kerr gave details of the background to the motion and referred to the many years of conflict and the stumbling peace process and to the strange situation when the British Government sponsored a secret service to murder citizens. More and more evidence was coming to light of the involvement of Loyalist Forces in murder campaigns as part of the British Government’s campaign. He felt that this policy was still in place and could continue to operate if it was so chosen today or tomorrow. It was imperative that this policy was dismantled.
Councillor J A McBride said that the motion was unlikely to foster reconciliation. He said that the SDLP had attempted to acknowledge the sense of hurt felt by people across the community and proposed an Amendment.
Amendment
“That this Council calls on all those involved in, or with knowledge of murders or attempted murders during the “Troubles” to disclose full information on and details of those murders and attempted murders
- Deplores the involvement of British State and its agencies in a number of such murders, through direct murder by British State forces and the collusion of those forces with paramilitary organisations and calls upon the British Government to give the necessary assurances that all such murders will be fully and impartially investigated, that members of the British State forces who have committed murder or colluded in murder will be brought to justice and that British State forces and agencies will henceforward act only within the law.
- Deplores and condemns the murder campaigns of all the paramilitaries and calls for a final end to all violence and illegal activities on the part of those paramilitaries.
- Calls on the IRA to finally disclose the whereabouts of the remains of those they murdered, and whose bodies they have sacrilegiously concealed, contrary to common decency and natural morality, and in defiance of the teachings of all the Christian Churches, so that the bereaved families can finally give their loves ones a Christian burial.” 48
The motion was seconded by Councillor P H McErlean.
Councillor G C Shiels enquired as to what collusion had taken place. Graveyards revealed the activities of the IRA. The motion was an insult to the people of the area and should be thrown out.
Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea said that there was a motion and an amendment before the Council. He said that in the opening remarks comments were made about the years of conflict, he said these were still going on. He said that it was a piece-by-piece process. Northern Ireland was on the verge of another election and this motion was all about the moves within Sinn Fein.
Councillor Rev McCrea in referring to the Amendment said that there was no mention of the collusion between the Guards and the IRA or the Southern Government and the IRA. It seemed as if democracy was all the one way.
Councillor R A Montgomery agreed that the motion should have been thrown out. He personally knew of no investigation.
Councillor Kerr stated that the focus of the motion was on the families who believed that there was collusion in the murders of their members.
Councillor P McLean requested a recorded vote.
On a vote being taken in favour of the Amendment Councillors Miss K A Lagan, J A McBride and P H McErlean voted in favour (3 votes)
Councillors T J Catherwood, P E Groogan, O T Hughes, J F Kerr, Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, P McLean, R A Montgomery, H E Mullan, S O’Brien, and J P O’Neill voted against the motion (10 votes).
Councillors J Junkin and G C Shiels abstained.
The Chairman declared the Amendment lost.
On the motion being put to the meeting, Councillors P E Groogan, O T Hughes, J F Kerr, H E Mullan, S O’Brien and J P O’Neill voted in favour (6 votes).
49
Councillors T J Catherwood, J Junkin, Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, P McLean, R A Montgomery and G C Shiels voted against the motion (6 votes).
Councillors Miss K A Lagan, J A McBride and P H McErlean abstained.
The Chairman declined to use her casting vote and declared the motion lost. 50
22. FINANCIAL 22.1 St Mary’s College, Clady: CONTRIBUTIONS Submitted a letter from the Vice Principal dated 13 October 2003 (copy handed out to each 56/10/2003 Member) requesting a donation to defray the expenses of five students involved in a project called School Aid Romania.
22.1.1 In the letter the Vice Principal explained that this was a cross-community project for students of 16-18 years old. It involved visiting orphanages and hospitals in Romania, bringing financial aid and spending much time with the children from disadvantaged backgrounds and with physical and mental disabilities.
22.1.2 The group from St Mary’s College would join with students from Downshire College, St Louis Ballymena and Cambridge House, Ballymena and the trip would take place in February 2004.
22.1.3 The letter further intimated that all plane fares and money to purchase necessities for the orphanages has to be raised by the students, their communities and families and they would therefore appreciate any generosity shown towards them.
22.1.4 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor P H McErlean, Seconded by Councillor J P O’Neill, and
RESOLVED: that the letter of request be forwarded to the Community Relations Officer for consideration of a Community Relations grant.
22.1.5 Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea added, that was provided the application fell within the criteria for Community Relations grant-aid.
22.2 Ryan Logue: Submitted a letter from Mrs Irene Logue, Maghera stating that her son Ryan who was a member of Draperstown ABC Boxing Club had been selected to represent Ulster in a two-match tour of Canada at the beginning of October and requesting that the Council would sponsor him for this event (copy handed out to each Member).
51 22.2.1 Councillor P E Groogan requested that the letter should be marked “read” as the Club had paid Ryan Logue’s expenses, and this was agreed to.
22.3 RAMS - Race Against Multiple Sclerosis: Submitted letter dated 30 September 2003 from the Centre Manager seeking financial help with the work carried out by RAMS, a local charity based in the Dunmurry area (copy handed out to each Member).
22.3.1 The letter further stated that residents from Magherafelt and the surrounding areas received help from the charity.
22.3.2 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: to make a contribution of £750 to RAMS.
22.4 Wave Trauma Centre: Submitted correspondence from Wave Trauma Centre requesting funding of their Information Day in Magherafelt (copy handed out to each Member).
22.4.1 The letter further intimated that around fifteen people in the Magherafelt District Council were benefiting from their services, either as victims or survivors of the trouble.
22.4.2 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: to make a contribution of £200 towards Wave’s Information Day in Magherafelt to be held on 15 October 2003.
23. RESOLUTION TO It was PROCEED “IN COMMITTEE” PROPOSED by Councillor T J Catherwood, Seconded by Councillor J A McBride, and
RESOLVED: that the Council proceed “In Committee”. 52
Council “In Committee”
24. STAFF MATTERS This item was taken “In Committee”.
25. LEGAL MATTERS This item was taken “In Committee”.
26. RESOLUTION TO It was PROCEED IN “OPEN COUNCIL” PROPOSED by Councillor J A McBride, Seconded by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, and
RESOLVED: that proceedings be resumed in “Open Council”.
Proceedings in “Open Council”
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor J A McBride, Seconded by Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, and
RESOLVED: that the foregoing proceedings of the Council “In Committee” be and they are hereby approved and adopted.
27. SEALING OF There were no items for sealing. DOCUMENTS
28. ITEMS FOR The following items were submitted for the INFORMATION information of Members:-
a) Minutes of Meetings of the North-Eastern Education and Library Board. b) Minutes of the Northern Health and Social Services Council held on Wednesday, 4 June 2003. c) Northern Ireland Housing Executive – Executive Briefing – Wednesday 27 August 2003. d) Press Release of the Northern Health and Social Services Board – September meeting. e) Copy of Lord Sharman’s Report on Audit and Accountability: Implementing Government Commitments on Audit and Access. 53 f) Copy of NILGA News – Issue 4 (copy circulated to each Member). g) Copy of the Northern Childcare Partnership – Second Childcare Plan 2003/04 – 2005/06 prepared by the Northern Health and Social Services Council (copy circulated to each Member) l) Annual Reports:
1. Northern Ireland Housing Executive 2. The Planning and Appeals Commission – Chief Commissioner’s Annual Report 3. Northern Ireland Policing Board – 1 April 2002 – 31 March 2003 4. Health Promotions Agency 5. Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland 6. The Standard of Decision Making and Payment Accuracy in the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency.
The meeting concluded at 12.05 a.m.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
The foregoing Minutes are hereby Confirmed.
______(Chairman)
______(Date)