ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL
22 February 2018
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 February 2018 commencing at 7.00pm.
Yours faithfully
Stephen Reid Chief Executive Ards and North Down Borough Council
A G E N D A
1. Prayer
2.Apologies
3.Declarations of Interest
4.Mayor’s Business
5.Mayor and Deputy Mayor Engagements for the Month (To be tabled)
6.Minutes of Meeting of Council dated 31 January 2017 (Copy attached)
7.Minutes of Special Meeting of Council dated 13 February 2018 (Copy attached)
8.Minutes of Committees (Copies attached)
8.1 Planning Committee dated 6 February 2018 8.2 Environment Committee dated 7 February 2018 8.3 Regeneration and Development Committee dated 8 February 2018
8.3.1 Matter Arising – Bid for Pipeband Championships (Report attached) 8.4 Corporate Services Committee dated 13 February 2018 8.5 Community and Wellbeing Committee dated 14 February 2018 8.6 Special Regeneration and Development Committee dated 22 February 2018
9. Request for Delegated Authority
9.1 Community and Wellbeing Committee for Tender Award (Report attached)
10. Conferences, Invitations etc.
10.1 William McFadzean VC Commemoration Society – Sportsmans Dinner – 16 March 2018 (Correspondence attached) 10.2 NILGA – Code of Conduct Refresher Information Sessions for Councillors (Correspondence attached) 10.3 Landmark Chambers – Plan Making Conference, London, 5th March 2018 (Report attached)
11. Consultation Documents
11.1 HSENI – Proposals to Implement the Fourth List of Indicative Occupational Exposure Limit Values (Commission Directive (EU) 2017/164) (Correspondence attached)
12. Transfers of Rights of Burial
13. Sealing Documents
14. Notices of Motion Status Report (Report attached)
15. Notices of Motion
15.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cummings
That this Council seeks a report into the feasibility of removing redundant low level concrete walls and unused land at the Community Hall, Park Way, Comber, with a view to increasing car parking capacity and thereby addressing the growing demand for space.
15.2 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor McIlveen
This Council acknowledges and expresses its gratitude for the work that is carried out on a daily basis by carers and healthcare workers across the Borough for those suffering from dementia; notes that in the 2017 data released by NISRA that Ards and North Down Borough Council had the highest number of people in Northern Ireland affected by dementia per 1000 registered patients; believes that this Council has an important role to play in improving the lives of people affected by dementia and their carers and that it can play a positive role in championing people affected by dementia; and hereby resolves:- - to ensure the needs of people affected by dementia and their carers are considered in all aspects of the Council’s work, - to appoint a Dementia Champion, and
2
- to work with partners locally and the Alzheimer’s Society, many of who are already working our make towns throughout our Borough dementia- friendly, towards becoming a dementia friendly Borough.
15.3 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Martin and Councillor Cathcart
Given the ongoing installation of high speed internet cabling by Virgin Media and the subsequent repair work to local pavements Council requests representatives from Transport NI and Virgin Media to urgently come before the relevant committee to report on the number of complaints they have received, the methodology for solving them and the associated timeframes.
15.4 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Douglas and Councillor Muir
That this Council re-affirms our support for the ‘No Hate Here’ Campaign and accordingly condemns outright any graffiti, murals, signs or items espousing hate, including reflection of support for paramilitary organisations, noting the destructive impact such can have upon individuals and communities and urges all relevant statutory agencies to work together via the Community Planning Partnership to develop plans for removal of pre-existing displays and protocols to ensure prompt removal immediately after being identified.
15.5 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Walker
That this Council acknowledges residents should have the choice to plant a tree in memory of a loved one and asks officers to bring back a report identifying potential suitable locations for a Borough Memorial Garden and Arboretum along with an estimated budget for its development.
15.5 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Muir
That this Council agrees to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting that he give consideration to extending the zero VAT arrangement for construction of new buildings to costs associated with restoration of pre-existing buildings, with particular priority given to listed buildings.
15.6 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Muir, Alderman Girvan and Councillor Douglas
That this Council asks that officers bring back a report on possible installation of free and publicly accessible Bicycle Repair Stations at key locations in our Borough such as Comber, Bangor and Holywood following introduction of similar at CS Lewis Square, Belfast comprising of a bicycle pump unit and a unit containing a range of retractable tools to provide cyclists with a free facility to make adjustments and repairs on the spot.
3
15.7 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor McIlveen, Councillor Kennedy and Councillor Armstrong-Cotter
That this Council hosts a civic reception for the Ards Ladies Hockey Club Indoor Squad in recognition of winning their seventh successive Irish Indoor Championship.
15.8 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor McIlveen
That this Council attaches signage to appropriate locations within the areas covered by Council provided town centre WiFi promoting the fact that free WiFi is available in that area.
15.9 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Douglas
This Council recognises the citizens of Ards and North Down Borough’s commitment to human rights and agrees to support Amnesty International’s call on The Northern Ireland Executive (or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in its absence) to set-up a human rights-compliant public inquiry into allegations of forced labour, arbitrary detention, ill treatment and the illegal adoption of babies in former mother and baby homes across the province.
16. Battle of the Somme Anniversary Commemoration 1st July 2018 (Report attached)
*** ITEMS 17-21 IN CONFIDENCE ***
17. Tender report for Regional Home Safety Check Software Procurement (Report to follow)
18. The Replacement Ards Leisure Centre Flexible Space (Report to follow)
19. The Replacement Ards Leisure Centre – External Facilities Costs (Report attached
20. Single Tender Action – Supply of Dot Comedy Maze for Easter Event (Report attached)
21. Request for Licence to Access Temporary Works Area of Hibernia Street, Holywood (Report attached)
Circulated for Information
(i) TNI – Disabled Persons Parking Places on Road – Church View, Portaferry (Correspondence attached) (ii) Courts and Tribunals Service – Increase in Court Fees from 1 April 2018 (Correspondence attached) (iii) Letter from Constituent– Funding for Royal Wedding celebrations (Correspondence attached)
4
MEMBERSHIP OF ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL
Alderman Carson Councillor Dunne Alderman Fletcher Councillor Douglas Alderman Gibson Councillor Edmund Alderman Girvan Councillor Ferguson Alderman Graham Councillor Gilmour Alderman Henry Councillor Kennedy Alderman Irvine Councillor Martin Alderman Keery Councillor McAlpine Alderman McDowell Councillor McClean Alderman Smith Councillor McIlveen Councillor Adair (Mayor) Councillor Menagh Councillor Allen Councillor Muir Councillor Armstrong-Cotter Councillor Robinson Councillor Barry Councillor Smart Councillor Boyle Councillor T Smith Councillor Brooks Councillor Thompson Councillor Cathcart Councillor Walker (Deputy Mayor) Councillor Chambers Councillor Wilson Councillor Cooper Councillor Woods Councillor Cummings
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, 31 January 2018 commencing at 7.00pm.
PRESENT:
In the Chair: The Mayor (Councillor Adair)
Aldermen: Carson Henry Fletcher Irvine Gibson Keery Girvan McDowell Graham
Councillors: Allen (7.30pm) Kennedy (7.13pm) Armstrong- Cotter Martin Barry McClean Boyle McIlveen Brooks Menagh Cathcart Muir Chambers Robinson Cooper Smart Cummings T Smith Dunne Thompson Douglas Walker Edmund Wilson Gilmour Woods
Officers: Chief Executive (S Reid), Director of Community and Wellbeing (G Bannister), Director of Environment (D Lindsay), Director of Organisational Development and Administration (W Monson), Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning (S McCullough), Interim Director of Finance and Performance (J Pentland), Corporate Communications Manager (C Jackson), Democratic Services Manager (J Wilson) and Democratic Services Officer (P Foster)
1. PRAYER
The Mayor (Councillor Adair) welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited the Chief Executive to commence the meeting by reading the Council prayer.
NOTED.
C.31.01.18
2. APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Councillors Ferguson, Leslie and McAlpine.
NOTED.
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Mayor asked for any declarations of interest and none were declared.
NOTED.
4. MAYOR’S BUSINESS
The Mayor took the opportunity to welcome everyone to the meeting, adding that one of his new year’s resolutions was to work together for everyone throughout the Borough and be kind to all.
Reporting on a very busy month the Mayor expressed his thanks to the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Walker, for his assistance. Continuing he referred to the recent Holocaust Memorial events which had taken place at which he had been privileged to meet Rachel Levy a Holocaust survivor. Turning to forthcoming events the Mayor referred to the Royal Gun Salute taking place at Bangor Castle the following week which he hoped would be enjoyed by many. He also took the opportunity to express his thanks to the Democratic Services team and noted that they had made an appearance in a recent edition of the Ulster Tatler. He also thanked all members for their continued support.
In summing up he sought members support through sponsorship for a charity parachute jump organised by Decorum NI to raise funds for the four Mayoral Charities. The parachute jump was scheduled to take place on 17 February 2018 and he encouraged members to make a donation of £5 and circulated a sponsorship sheet at this stage.
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 January 2017.
NOTED.
2
C.31.01.18
6. MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 18 DECEMBER 2017
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Copy of the above minutes.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Robinson, that the minutes be agreed as a correct record.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Councillor T Smith referred to Standing Order 13 ‘Order of Business’ and commented that as he had been contacted by a number of constituents in respect of Item 19 EQIA for Naming of New Leisure Facility in Newtownards, he asked that it was considered ‘Out of Committee’.
Councillor T Smith proposed, seconded by Councillor Menagh that Item 19 EQIA for Naming of New Leisure Facility in Newtownards was considered ‘Out of Committee’.
In response the Chief Executive advised that given the legal matters referred to in the report it had been recommended to consider the matter ‘In Committee’. However, should the debate remain without reference to specific legal matters then the matter could be discussed ‘Out of Committee’.
Councillor T Smith stated that as he had been contacted by so many constituents about the matter he considered it appropriate for it to be considered in the public domain.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Menagh, with 27 voting FOR and 0 voting AGAINST that, Item 19 EQIA for Naming of New Leisure Facility in Newtownards was considered ‘Out of Committee’.
(Councillor Kennedy entered the meeting at this stage – 7.13pm)
7. MINUTES OF COMMITTEES
7.1. Corporate Services Committee dated 12 December 2017 – Deferred from Council Meeting held on 18 December 2017
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Copy of the above minutes.
Alderman Keery proposed, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the minutes be adopted.
Page 38 – Item 13.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Alderman Girvan, seconded by Councillor Douglas
Alderman Girvan stated the following line had been omitted – ‘young people today have access to the internet and social media and were therefore much better informed about what was happening locally, nationally and around the world’. 3
C.31.01.18
Alderman Girvan proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that the following line was incorporated into the minutes – ‘young people today have access to the internet and social media and were therefore much better informed about what was happening locally, nationally and around the world’.
Councillor T Smith stated that in his opinion that was not a matter of accuracy.
At this stage Councillor McIlveen stated that members should not go back over every single issue which had been debated but instead should only be raising matters of accuracy. Continuing he expressed his frustration particularly as the motion referred to had not been successful and added that it was unfair to expect members of the Democratic Services team to write down absolutely every word spoken. He added that it was also unfair to have that expectation and reminded members that minutes were put forward at Council meetings to consider them for accuracy purposes only.
The Mayor also took the opportunity to remind members that Hansard minutes were only taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Parliament and if members wished to have Hansard minutes taken that was something which would need to be paid for.
On being put to the meeting, with 9 voting FOR and 17 voting AGAINST, the amendment FELL.
NOTED.
Page 43 – Item 13.5 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cooper
Councillor Cooper proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Menagh, that the final paragraph be amended to read ‘….and it would cost millions to implement the Act.’
NOTED.
Page 38 – Item 13.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Alderman Girvan, seconded by Councillor Douglas
Alderman Girvan proposed, seconded by Councillor Douglas that this Council calls upon the Government and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to bring forward legislation to extend the right to vote to everyone aged 16 or over, in time for the 2019 Local Government elections and all future Assembly and Westminster elections and any referenda.
Alderman Girvan advised that there had been some major changes undertaken on this matter since it had been debated by the Committee. She stated that whenever young people were 16 they could leave school, start a job, pay taxes, join the armed forces, legally have sex, and get married. She added that at 16 you could also make life changing decisions and contribute greatly to society but yet you were not allowed to vote.
4
C.31.01.18
Continuing Alderman Girvan pointed out that, compared to her youth,16 and 17 year olds today were much better informed, more mature and more worldly-wise than her generation for two main reasons:
1. The school curriculum had changed. Citizenship was now a mandatory part of the Northern Ireland school curriculum and at Key Stage 3 and 4, young people between the ages of 11-16 learnt how their lives were governed, how democracy worked, the rule of law, equality, human rights, the electoral system and the importance of voting. They also learnt about local and national governments both in the UK and around the world and how active participation could influence change. 2. Young people today had access to the internet and social media such as Facebook and Instagram and were therefore much better informed about what was happening locally, nationally and around the world.
She stated that many more countries around the world, including Scotland and more recently Wales, had changed their legislation to permit 16/17 year olds to vote. As with the rest of the population, she recognised that not all 16/17 year olds would exercise their right to vote at elections but those who had a significant interest should be given the opportunity to do so for the reasons outlined in her notice of motion. She concluded that many politicians were out of touch with their grass roots and the mood of the people and she urged the members to support her amendment.
Rising to second the proposal, Councillor Douglas commented that over 1.5 million 16 and 17 year olds within the United Kingdom were currently denied the right to vote, and yet many held responsibilities in many other areas of life such as:-
Consent to medical treatment; Leave school and enter work or a training programme; Pay Income Tax and National Insurance contributions; Obtain social security benefits in their own right; Consent to sexual intercourse; Get married or enter a civil partnership with parental consent; Change their name by deed poll; Become the Director of a Company; Join the Armed Forces to serve their country; Become a member of a trade union.
However, she questioned the case for extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. Firstly, she recognised that young people had agency in social science terms relating to the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. Continuing, Councillor Douglas suggested that young people aged 16 and 17 had their own narratives, and experiences and ways of making meaning from the world in which they lived. She recognised the importance of hearing their views and to enable and inspire them to represent and influence the issues which were critical to their being. She stated that when members were making public policy they should be seeking to legislate with young people as active citizens within the democratic process rather than legislating for them.
5
C.31.01.18
It was noted the Department for Work & Pensions estimated in the past decade the total amount of tax paid by 16 and 17 year olds equated to over £550million. During 2006-7 alone it was approximately £47million (source: Department for Work & Pensions correspondence to the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, 2008). Given their fiscal contributions Councillor Douglas questioned why young tax payers should not have a say on how their contributions were spent by their Government.
Councillor Douglas reported that although the UK Government policy stated that young people under 18 years were not to be deployed on operations that would see them engaged in hostilities, a written response to a question raised by Adam Ingram MP in the House of Commons (2007) confirmed that 18 young people aged 16 and 17 had been deployed since 2003. It was noted 15 of those had been deployed to Iraq. Therefore, if young people were being asked to serve for their country and potentially make the ultimate sacrifice, surely, they should be entitled to vote for the Government that made those decisions about going to war, and policies which informed whether our Armed Forces had the appropriate resources and support they required to engage in combat, and to return to civilian life post-combat.
At this stage Councillor Douglas noted that opponents purported that 16 and 17 year olds may not turn out to vote. Instead some may choose not to vote as would be their right, just as in many other groups within society, but she added consideration would not be given to removing their right to vote just because they did not use it.
She asked why those who wished to engage in the democratic processes should be denied the right to vote, adding that again the evidence base from countries who had extended the franchise to that age group was that they were more likely to engage when supported to do so. Councillor Douglas also noted that opponents worried that at 16 young people were impressionable and immature, however she felt that could be said of many people aged 18 and over too. She added that there was an absence of evidence to demonstrate 16 and 17 year olds would be more impressionable.
Councillor Douglas recalled that approximately 100 years ago it was thought women could not possibly have a political view or vote as they were considered to be too naïve or innocent. She noted that it was argued that their husbands should vote as they knew what was in their best interests. Many of the arguments put forward by opponents to extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds were similar to what was argued 100 years ago to deny women the right to vote. She expressed the view that to apply those arguments to young people today was as patronising today as it was to women a century ago, particularly as the evidence base suggested that when young people were engaged in a meaningful way they too could respond with responsibility and enthusiasm.
In summing up Councillor Douglas stated that by supporting the proposal, society could progress into the future and therefore she encouraged members to give a voice to the voiceless, and recognise the important contribution they made in society, and advocate for their right to vote.
(Councillor Smart left the meeting at this stage – 7.26pm)
6
C.31.01.18
Councillor McIlveen commented that listening to the proposer and seconder it would appear to the uninitiated that a really poor debate had taken place with claims made that under 18’s were immature and patronizing language used. However, he felt that it had been an incredibly mature debate but he did have some concerns that it had been led by the Chairman from the Chair and that was something which should never have been allowed to take place particularly in respect of Standing Orders. He questioned the logic behind this proposal which in his view would force children to grow up and instead he would prefer children to be allowed to be just that, children, for as long as they could be. He could only conclude that those seeking to lower the age were seeking to exploit youth idealism before the realism of adulthood would commence. In his opinion there were enough pressures on the youth of today without the need for being targeted by political parties.
(Councillor Smart entered the meeting at this stage – 7.27pm)
Continuing Councillor McIlveen expressed the view that an attempt was being made to exploit children and encouraged members just to let them be children. He stated that he had met many articulate young people but he did believe that a line needed to be drawn somewhere. He asked why not lower the age to 13 or 14, after all 13 year olds were permitted to work. He stated that 16-year-olds did not enjoy the same rights as an 18-year-old in many ways and it was not limited to voting. Those things that they were allowed to do came with conditions attached and he detailed all of the things which those under 18 could not legally do:
Get a mortgage or tenancy agreement Sue or be sued Hold a driving licence or pilots licence Get a tattoo, buy alcohol or take part in Jury Service If a criminal offence was committed they would be tried by a Youth Court Make a Will Gamble or place bets Be elected to Council or Parliament
In summing up he stated that in his opinion 18 was indeed the age of majority and a line needed to be drawn somewhere and therefore he was content with the current arrangements. He added that he felt it would be unfair to lower the age to 16 as young people had enough pressures to deal with and those 16 year olds should not be forced to deal with the deluge of rubbish from political parties trying to exploit their idealism and indeed, it would be wrong to do that.
(Councillor Allen entered the meeting at this stage – 7.30pm)
Councillor Kennedy expressed the view that the proposal was no more than a political stunt to secure the support of the community. He stated that that it had been a long time since the Alliance party had been the party of Alderman Alan McDowell and he suggested that identity politics was at the heart of the proposal before members. Continuing he added that it was an attempt to twist words in order to make them relevant and depict the proposers as some sort of saviours.
7
C.31.01.18
Speaking as an independent member, Councillor Robinson commented that as a mother of three daughters she was content that at the age of 16 they were independent, opinionated and able to make their own life choices. She stated that the she was very proud of her children who were all now successful independent young women. Young people in her opinion should have a ‘buy in’ to their future and therefore should have a voice and to do so could indeed increase turnout at elections which previously had suffered from low turnout.
Councillor Barry indicated that he wished to respond to comments made in respect of bundles of rights and lines being drawn to transfer those over to other areas. Issues such as getting a tattoo and buying alcohol he stated had no bearing on the issue being discussed which was citizenship rights of people being able to have the opportunity to vote. This drawing of the line could be done for different sections of the community and for different points in life along with the blunt instrument at 18 and that was what was unacceptable. Continuing he suggested that this was the next extension of democracy. In terms of going back to the magna carta and the struggle people had when the men with property had the right to vote, closely followed by the working class and women, this now seemed to be the latest stage of evolution of the democratic system. Councillor Barry stated that it seemed that despite what had been suggested it was not manipulation by political parties but it was actually what young people wanted. He commented on the idea that young people were not informed or did not have enough life experience and stated that was no longer the case. In his opinion the age of having sense and political judgement was nothing to do with being over 18. Councillor Barry expressed the view that democracy was in crisis, there was a lack of trust in the system and a noticeable decline in the numbers of people voting. He added that to lower the age to 16 would reinvigorate democracy, establish this next level of evolution and a stepping stone. By lowering the age, young people could become more involved in politics, become active citizens as opposed to passive taxpayers/ratepayers.
(Councillor Gilmour left the meeting at this stage – 7.40pm)
In summing up Councillor Barry stated that in his opinion this was long overdue particularly as Scotland and Wales were now leading the way. He encouraged everyone to listen to young people as they were the future and he noted that no strong or substantive arguments had been made against the proposal. He urged people to recognise and respect different views and added that it was wrong to present the matter as political opportunism being demanded by young people. He stated that it was wrong to paint the proposal as a political stunt as instead it was something which was being demanded by young people.
(Councillor Gilmour entered the meeting at this stage – 7.41pm)
Councillor Boyle queried if the proposal was to protect those over 16 or protect the reputation of the DUP. He expressed the view that politicians did not converse with young people and having been in business for over 30 years he was quite well aware that those aged 16 and over were fully informed of all that was going on in the world. One example he referred to was the attendance of many young people on radio and television shows such as ‘The Stephen Nolan Show’.
8
C.31.01.18
(Councillor Dunne left the meeting at this stage – 7.43pm)
Continuing he acknowledged that 16 year olds were much more worldly wise now than when they were years ago and therefore in his opinion they should be allowed to pursue their interests particularly in politics.
(Councillor Dunne entered the meeting at this stage – 7.46pm)
Stating that she was flummoxed by the accusations which had been made, Councillor Armstrong-Cotter proceeded to refer to the comments of her colleague who had highlighted what 16 year olds could not legally do. She acknowledged that the law had put those restrictions into place to protect people and added that neither she nor her party colleagues would ever put politics above the protection of children, as they recognised those laws had been made to protect children and their innocence. Continuing Councillor Armstrong-Cotter acknowledged the stresses and strains 16 year olds were placed under when undertaking their GCSE and A level examinations particularly as they were required to carry out up to 20 hours a week of revision. Such demands then impacted their leisure time which provided some much needed relief from studying. She commented that children should be left to enjoy their childhood for as long as possible because life was tough. Continuing she referred to an email she had received from a 15-year-old in respect of an environmental issue and commented that she had been astounded by how well articulated that letter had been written. Similarly, she referred to a letter written by a 14-year-old in relation to electoral work which was so good it could have been written as a party manifesto so therefore that could be reason for the age to be lowered again. Councillor Armstrong-Cotter acknowledged that at 18 you were considered an adult in law and had reached your majority. She added that while children may seem more informed through channels such as social medial everyone needed to be mindful that information via such channels could be incorrect leaving children mis- informed. Therefore, she would continue to act in a positive way to protect the innocence of children.
Councillor Woods stated that voting was not compulsory and continuing she thanked members for their comments but added that she did not agree with them. She stated that the reality was that this was something which should be happening and was being demanded. She commented that at 16 she already had two jobs, had chosen her school examination subjects and was already paying her way. Councillor Woods added that she was not some idealist waiting to be exploited and continuing acknowledged that society had changed and it was necessary to ensure that was reflected in political and governmental structures. She added that young people wanted their voice to be heard and in her mind that could only be a good thing.
Councillor Muir asked for a recorded vote to be taken.
On being put to the meeting, with 17 voting FOR, 18 voting AGAINST, 1 ABSTAINING and 4 ABSENT, the amendment was declared LOST.
9
C.31.01.18
A recorded vote resulted as follows:
FOR (17) AGAINST (18) ABSTAINING (1) ABSENT (4) Aldermen Aldermen Councillor Alderman Carson Gibson Cathcart M Smith Fletcher Graham Councillors Girvan Irvine Ferguson Henry Keery Leslie McDowell Councillors McAlpine Councillors Adair Barry Allen Boyle Armstrong-Cotter Brooks Cooper Chambers Cummings Douglas Dunne McClean Edmund Muir Gilmour Robinson Kennedy Smart Martin Walker McIlveen Wilson Menagh Woods T Smith Thompson
Page 42 – Item 13.5 – Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cooper
Councillor Boyle stated that he wished to be recorded as being opposed to the motion. He expressed the view that there should be an Irish Language Act and anticipated one would be introduced in due course. Continuing he stated that people needed to respect others and should step up and wake up.
NOTED.
At this stage Alderman Graham noted that it was almost 8pm and in his opinion nothing of any real substance had been discussed. He referred to the previous comments made by Councillor Boyle agreeing that respect needed to be demonstrated but added that was difficult when Councillor Boyle’s party had named a child’s playpark after an IRA terrorist.
NOTED.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Keery, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the minutes be adopted subject to the above amendment.
7.2. Special Corporate Services Committee dated 14 December 2017
Members were advised the minutes would now be considered ‘In Committee’.
NOTED. 10
C.31.01.18
7.3. Audit Committee dated 8 January 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Copy of the above minutes.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Councillor Muir, that the minutes be adopted.
7.4. Environment Committee dated 10 January 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Copy of the above minutes.
Councillor Martin proposed, seconded by Councillor Edmund that the minutes be adopted.
Page 17 – Item 10 Performas for HRC Access Permit Scheme (Referred from Council meeting held on 18 December 2017)
Councillor Menagh proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that in light of the issues arising from the current Council policy, and specifically the problems this was causing for local businesses and the associated negative economic effect, it was suggested that the policy be enhanced in order to provide a mechanism for local businesses to continue to thrive, and not be needlessly disadvantaged by excessive bureaucracy.
He suggested that the proposed scheme could incorporate the following provisions: -
A scheme to allow businesses registered within the Ards and North Down area to apply for a 12 month accredited business permit, allowing them usage of the centre without the bureaucratic restrictions of paying for individual permits per job. The current single-use access system could remain in place for those travelling from outside the Borough, or for local individuals, but would be superseded by the accredited business scheme for verified local businesses. A three-strike rule, whereby any business caught to be breaching the rules would have their permit revoked for a period of 12 months.
At this stage the Chief Executive informed members that the policy referred to in the amendment had already been ratified by Council in late 2017 and therefore could not be taken however a rescinding notice of motion would be required to bring about the proposed change in policy.
The Director of Environment added that the matter had been considered by the Council a year and a half ago when its effectiveness, implementation and impact had been discussed. It was also noted that the HRC Access Permit Scheme had been agreed by Council in October 2017 and the report before members was merely to consider the wording of the permit. The Director added that the proposed amendment did not relate to the recommendation contained in the report before them.
11
C.31.01.18
Commenting further the Chief Executive reiterated that the policy was already in place and therefore a rescinding notice of motion would be required.
The Mayor apologised for not being able to hear the matter any further given the Standing Orders referred to.
At this stage Councillor T Smith sough some clarity on the matter of the permit and recalled that the proposal had been brought forward in September 2016 which stopped businesses taking waste to household recycling centres.
In response the Director of Environment agreed that was the case and commercial vans and large trailers were no longer permitted on site at household recycling centres. It was agreed that staff on site would exercise some discretion at the outset but that proved ineffective and ultimately all vehicles were still able to enter the recycling centre.
Referring to the Permit Scheme, Councillor T Smith sought clarification on whether or not it related to individual householders who took their own waste to the recycling permits.
The Director of Environment stated that household waste items such as bulky goods, appliances and sofas were all legally classified as household waste items and the householder themselves must apply for a permit and provide all of the relevant details if a third party was to dispose of them in the HRC. Those people bringing items to dispose of in a car were not restricted as the scheme did not apply to cars, therefore they were totally unaffected by the policy.
(Alderman Keery left the meeting at this stage – 8.05pm)
Councillor Chambers noted the petition referred to by Councillor Menagh adding that he too had received numerous enquiries about the matter. He asked if any consideration had been given to some form of compromise such as an emergency pro-forma and also noted the potential difficulties for those involved in house clearances.
(Councillor Martin left the meeting at 8.10pm)
Agreeing that those were important issues, the Director of Environment advised that matters such as that had been debated and noted that under such circumstances solicitors could apply for a permit on behalf of the householder.
At this stage the Mayor advised members that if they had any further queries in respect of the matter that they raised them directly with the Director of Environment.
NOTED.
(Councillors Gilmour & Martin entered the meeting at this stage – 8.15pm)
12
C.31.01.18
Page 33 – Item 9 War Memorials Refurbishment – Groomsport (Referred from Council meeting held on 18 December 2017)
Councillor Cathcart proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Martin, that the Council proceeds with the refurbishment of Groomsport War Memorial and carries out consultation with Groomsport Village Association.
Councillor Cathcart noted that the proposals in respect of Groomsport War Memorial including the issue of railings had been put to the Historic Environment Division (HED) for comment and they had responded stating that in principal they had no issue with the proposal to erect railings. Continuing he suggested that the Groomsport Remembrance Committee (GRC) had made a decision solely based upon that information and had remained ignorant to the views of those living in the village and in particular of their concerns in respect of the proposal for railings. He added that full and frank discussion of the matter should have taken place and a decision not made based upon the view of one particular group.
Rising in support, Councillor Martin advised that at that time he had been a member of the Groomsport Remembrance Committee and he had now resigned from the committee. Continuing Councillor Martin commented that how the Council proceeded forward with the matter was important and suggested that buy in to the proposals should be sought from stakeholders and individuals alike in order to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. At this stage he suggested the use of the three C’s:
Co-operation Collective Consultation Collaboration
Councillor Chambers noted that despite an agreed position between everyone about what work should be done around the memorial after the site meeting of February 2014, there still appeared to be a determination to press ahead for railings at the Groomsport War Memorial. This was despite the fact that such a move would almost certainly cause a controversy in the village that was totally avoidable if everyone would just listen to what the village was saying. He stated that he could only conclude that it was some sort of vanity project that one individual or a small group of likeminded individuals were absolutely hooked upon. Continuing he added that whether or not the HED went neutral on their position to railings or even became cheerleaders for such a project they would have to explain why their position had changed since 2014. Councillor Chambers took the opportunity to remind members that HED was merely a consultee in the planning process and more importantly what Groomsport wanted or did not want in this case trumped any opinion HED may hold.
Referring to the letter received from the GRC, Councillor Chambers noted they had kindly included a copy of their constitution for information. He commented that he had seen many constitutions of various community groups adding that this one was certainly quite unique in the way it promoted an exercise in self perpetuation along with an absence of any external transparency or desire to seek any mandate from the village. Councillor Chambers advised that it had never held one single public meeting and did not share any minutes or annual accounts in the public domain that he was aware of. Therefore, in his opinion, the constitution was not a publically 13
C.31.01.18 mandated document. Continuing, Councillor Chambers noted the constitutional remit of the committee was, " to ensure the conduct of the annual act of remembrance in Groomsport, and to pursue such activities that would enhance that core objective". He stated that Sections 2.1, 4.1 and 5 clearly defined their role as organising the Annual Act of Remembrance and that was their core objective which they did well.
In relation to placing railings around the Memorial, he questioned what that would enhance and how it would make the Committee’s core objective better. He stated that those who had attended this annual ceremony would have seen for themselves that railings would actually have an adverse effect on the free movement of participants around the Memorial. Railings would also act as a barrier to the public being able to approach it or read the names on it. Therefore, he failed to see why any degree of weight would be attached to the desire for railings when it was quite clear from their constitution why they existed. Councillor Chambers asked why a body that performed their duty on one day of the year should be given any influence over what the village would have to look at for the other 364 days of the year.
Councillor Chambers urged caution stating that if the Council was seen to be taking sides on this issue by formally corresponding with HED before any consultation had been undertaken as suggested in the Groomsport Remembrance Letter, it would send out the completely wrong signal. The village had already endured and recovered from the controversy of four years ago so why would any consideration be given to thinking about reopening old wounds and forcing the community to mount a campaign against all this. Instead the Council should be trying to work with communities and not against them or cause dissension or bad blood in such a settled community as Groomsport.
The village was grateful for the agreed work which had been carried out in 2014 and Councillor Chambers reported that they were happy and proud of the setting of the Memorial and that included aged relatives of some of those named on the Memorial. Therefore, for the sake of community relations in Groomsport he encouraged members to put this vanity project to bed once and for all and leave the setting of the Groomsport War Memorial as it was for future generations to reflect on.
He referred to last month’s Council meeting when Alderman Graham had said some wise words about sending the matter back to committee and out of the glare of negative publicity. He acknowledged that had been done and the committee had spoken loud and clear on a cross party basis and others would now have to take responsibility for it being brought back before the Council.
At this stage, Councillor Chambers advised he also had a letter from a Groomsport resident, over 70 years old who had lived there his entire life and he wished to read some parts of that letter to members:
“I am a long standing resident of Groomsport and I have heard recent rumours circulating in the Village relating to proposed work in the vicinity of the War Memorial. I made it my business to talk to three other gentlemen around the same age and who have lived in the Village since the end of WW2 until at least until the 1960s. Two of the four men have family members mentioned on the War Memorial and were teenagers in the 1950s. Between us we have a combined age of 305. 14
C.31.01.18
One afternoon in 1957 a boy named George Hamilton tried to climb the railings to retrieve a football and became impaled on the railings suffering serious injuries.
When the War Memorial was relocated a few years later after this, the railings did not follow and their disappearance was certainly not a matter of regret in the Village given the seriousness of the impaling incident.
I would hope when the Council is deliberating on these issues, that they listen to the voice of the Villagers and decide to leave well enough alone”.
At this stage Councillor Walker commented that four years ago the residents of Groomsport had made it clear that they did not want this and therefore he would be voting against the amendment.
Councillor T Smith expressed the view that a War Memorial should bring people together and suggested that a meeting was held with representatives of the two groups and a further public meeting was also held. He stated that views of the village could not be ignored.
(Alderman Girvan entered the meeting at this stage – 8.26pm)
Expressing his disappointment that the matter had been raised for further discussion, Councillor Smart acknowledged that people in the village would have a clear interest in the matter.
Councillor McIlveen indicated his intention to support the amendment as put forward by Councillor Cathcart.
Councillor Smart asked for a recorded vote to be taken.
On being put to the meeting, with 16 voting FOR, 19 voting AGAINST, 0 ABSTAINING and 5 ABSENT, the amendment was declared LOST.
A recorded vote resulted as follows:
FOR (16) AGAINST (19) ABSTAINING (0) ABSENT (5) Aldermen Aldermen Aldermen Gibson Carson Keery Graham Fletcher M Smith Irvine Girvan Councillors Councillors Henry Ferguson Adair McDowell Leslie Allen Councillors McAlpine Armstrong-Cotter Barry Cathcart Boyle Cummings Brooks Dunne Chambers Edmund Cooper Gilmour Douglas 15
C.31.01.18
Kennedy McClean Martin Menagh McIlveen Muir T Smith Robinson Thompson Smart Walker Wilson Woods
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Martin, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the minutes be adopted.
7.5. Regeneration and Development Committee dated 11 January 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Copy of the above minutes.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Cummings, seconded by Councillor Woods, that the minutes be adopted.
(Alderman Carson left the meeting at this stage – 8.32pm)
7.6. Corporate Services Committee dated 16 January 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Copy of the above minutes.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Girvan, seconded by Councillor Boyle, that the minutes be adopted.
(Councillor Menagh left the meeting at this stage – 8.32pm)
7.7. Community and Wellbeing Committee dated 17 January 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Copy of the above minutes.
Councillor Brooks proposed, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the minutes be adopted.
Page 28 - Item 15 Aurora Facility Issues
Councillor Robinson indicated that she wished to raise an item from this report.
Councillor Gilmour advised that the matter had previously been discussed ‘In Committee’ and therefore should again be considered ‘In Committee’.
AGREED.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Brooks, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the minutes be adopted subject to consideration of Item 15 ‘In Committee’. 16
C.31.01.18
7.8 Special Corporate Services Committee dated 22 January 2018
Members were advised the minutes would now be considered ‘In Committee’.
NOTED.
8. REQUESTS FOR DEPUTATION – FILE REF:DS8
8.1. Phoenix Natural Gas – Ballysallagh Road, Bangor Reinforcement Works
The Chief Executive advised that a request had been received from Phoenix Gas requesting an opportunity to update the Council on the planned works programme in respect of the reinforcement works scheme beginning March/April 2018 on the Ballysallagh Road, Bangor.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the deputation be heard by the Corporate Services Committee.
8.2. Ards and North Down Tennis Clubs
The Chief Executive advised that a request had been received on behalf of the five Tennis Clubs across the Borough who wished to make a presentation of its joint Strategy to the Council, which had been fully endorsed by the Ulster Branch of Tennis Ireland (UBTI).
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the deputation be heard by the Community and Wellbeing Committee.
8.3. Strangford Lough Wildfowlers & Conservation Association
The Chief Executive advised that a request had been received from Strangford Lough Wildfowlers and Conservation Association to address the Council about its concerns in respect of the new Reservoirs Act and its impact upon their site.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the deputation be heard by the appropriate Committee.
8.4. Northern Ireland Housing Executive – Housing Investment Plan
The Chief Executive advised that a request had been received from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) to present its Housing Investment Plan for the Council area.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the deputation be heard by the Corporate Services Committee.
17
C.31.01.18
8.5. Reverse the Trend Foundation
The Chief Executive advised that a request had been received from Reverse the Trend Foundation seeking an opportunity to garner political support for its healthy habit programme.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the deputation be heard by the Community and Wellbeing Committee.
8.6. NOW Group
The Chief Executive advised that a request had been received from the NOW Group to address the Council and provide an update on a number of its successful projects to date.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the deputation be heard by the Regeneration and Development Committee.
9. CONFERENCES, INVITATIONS ETC
9.1. Northern Ireland Agri-Business Conference 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Correspondence dated 27 November 2018 from AgendaNI providing details of the Northern Ireland Agri-Business Conference 2018 which was to take place in Craigavon Civic Centre, Co Armagh on Thursday 15 February 2018.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the conference be noted.
9.2. ABF The Soldiers’ Charity (NI) – The ‘Ulster at War’ Conference
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Correspondence dated 12 December 2017 from ABF The Soldiers’ Charity informing the Council about a unique musical entertainment event being hosted by them which would seek to recreate 1940s Ulster by means of music, comedy and fascinating stories of local heroism from every corner of the Province. The ‘Ulster at War’ Concert would take place at the Belfast Waterfront at 8pm on Saturday 24 March 2018 and would be a showcase of home-grown talent. The evening would be hosted by ‘Fermanagh Funny Man’ Gary Wilson and the concert would feature the Band, Bugles, Pipes and Drums of the Royal Irish Regiment, plus a number of other accomplished artistes; Willie Donald, Clara Wilson and the Leading Ladies with a special cameo appearance by UTV’s Paul Clark.
All money raised would be used for a single purpose: to support our soldiers, veterans and their families who were experiencing tough times. A bespoke VIP package for the evening had been designed specifically for representatives from local councils and tickets cost £45 per person. 18
C.31.01.18
Councillor Martin proposed, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that the Mayor be nominated to attend.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Martin, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that the Mayor be nominated to attend.
(Councillor Menagh entered the meeting at this stage – 8.35pm)
9.3. 29th Colmcille Winter School Conference – 23 & 24 February 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Correspondence dated 8 January 2018 from the secretary of the Colmcille Heritage Centre detailing the 29th Colmcille Winter School event taking place on Friday 23 and Saturday 24 February 2018. The theme for this year’s conference was ‘Housing Provision in Ireland’.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Irvine, that the event be noted.
9.4. Fire Safety Panel Conference 2018 – 8 & 9 February 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Correspondence dated 8 January 2018 from Building Control Northern Ireland detailing its Fire Safety Conference scheduled to take place on 8 & 9 February 2018 to be held at the Armagh City Hotel. The aim of the conference was the promotion and sharing of fire safety knowledge and expertise throughout the province enhancing the safety of all.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the conference be noted.
9.5. National Trust – Invitation to Shifting Shores Wave 2 Seminar – 22 February 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Correspondence from the National Trust on its Shifting Shores Wave 2 Seminar to be held on Thursday 22 February 2018 at 9.30am to 3pm at the Olympic Suite, Titanic, Belfast. During the Seminar, the National Trust would launch a report on data and knowledge for coastal change in Northern Ireland and updates would be provided from central and local government on current and future initiatives, as well as hearing from practitioners from nearby coasts.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that Councillors Edmund and Thompson be nominated to attend.
9.6. Solace (NI) Conference – Leadership in Action – 1 March 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Correspondence from Solace (NI) providing details of its Leadership in Action conference taking place at the Hilton, Templepatrick on 1 March 2018.
19
C.31.01.18
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the event be noted.
(Aldermen Carson & Henry entered the meeting at this stage – 8.37pm)
10. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS – FILE REF: DS7 PTIII
(Councillor Muir declared an interest in the next item and left the meeting at this stage – 8.36pm)
10.1. Department of Finance - Briefing on Northern Ireland Budgetary Outlook – Deferred from Corporate Services Committee January 2018 (Appendix II)
(Alderman Kerry entered the meeting at this stage – 8.38pm)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 26 January 2018 from the Chief Executive stating that in December 2017 The Department of Finance published for consultation a paper entitled “Briefing on Northern Ireland Budgetary Outlook” for the period 2018 – 2020. Consultation was to finish on 26 January 2018 and the paper was brought before Corporate Committee on 16 January 2018 where members requested it be put before full Council together with the final NILGA response to the proposals
The paper set out broad strategic issues to inform an incoming Executive’s decision on a budget for this period. It advised that in normal circumstances the Minister of Finance would have presented a draft budget to the Executive for agreement and later approval after debate by the Assembly. However, in the absence of Ministers the Department was now taking the step of publishing information about broad choices available for balancing the budget to help inform decisions to be taken by an incoming Executive.
(Councillor Dunne left the meeting at this stage - 8.39pm)
The paper advised that feedback on the briefing document could help form future decisions on the budget by an incoming Executive and invited the same with a series of questions set out on page 136 of the paper.
NILGA was conscious of the need to have a co-ordinated approach and hence collaborated with and sought the views of all NI councils together with SOLACE and ALGFO (Association of Local Government Finance Officers). The outcome of this was a NILGA response submitted on Friday 26 January 2018 and was attached along with the press statement accompanying the same.
Other bodies also submitted their views on the proposals and they were also attached for members’ considerations.
The Council was asked to consider noting the document, further responding itself or endorsing the NILGA response.
20
C.31.01.18
RECOMMENDED that the Council considers the Briefing on Northern Ireland Budgetary Outlook 2018-2020 and considers endorsing the NILGA response.
The Chief Executive guided members through the report highlighting the salient points and acknowledged the severe implications associated with the proposals.
Alderman McDowell proposed, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted and the Council supports the NILGA Response.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman McDowell, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted.
(Councillor Muir entered the meeting at this stage – 8.40pm)
10.2. The Consumer Council – Draft Forward Work Programme 2018/2019 (Comments to be submitted no later than 9 February 2018) (Appendix III)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Correspondence from the Consumer Council detailing its draft Forward Work Programme 2018-19 which was currently open for public consultation.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the consultation document be noted.
11. ARDS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL – MULTIAGENCY FORUM – FILE REF: DS36 (Appendix IV)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 22 January 2018 from the Chief Executive stating that correspondence had been received from Alderman Jeffers, Chair of the Multi-Agency Forum of the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, regarding the extension of the existing Forum at the Ulster Hospital to consider Traffic Management measures at the Ards Hospital Site.
Council was invited to nominate two elected members to sit on the Forum. It had also been requested that Council’s Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment, Mr Richard Brittain, be nominated to the Forum given his expertise in relation to preparing the Council’s car parking strategy.
RECOMMENDED that Council nominates two elected members to sit on the Ards Community Hospital Multi Agency Forum.
Further recommended that the Council’s Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment, also be nominated to the group.
Councillor Cooper proposed, seconded by Councillor McIlveen that the Council supports the initiative and appoints Councillor Menagh to the Ards Community Hospital –Multi Agency Forum.
21
C.31.01.18
Alderman Henry further proposed, seconded by Councillor Chambers, that Councillor Smart, be appointed to sit on the Ards Community Hospital – Multi Agency Forum.
(Councillor Dunne entered the meeting at this stage – 8.41pm)
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that the Council adopts the recommendations and appoints Councillor Menagh to the Ards Community Hospital Multi Agency Forum.
FURTHER RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Henry, seconded by Councillor Chambers, that Councillor Smart, be appointed to sit on the Ards Community Hospital Multi Agency Forum.
12. LETTER FROM GROOMSPORT REMEMBRANCE COMMITTEE (Appendix V)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Correspondence dated 16 January 2018 from the Groomsport Remembrance Committee noting that Councillors were contemplating holding a site meeting and they wished to present a talk to them detailing the various suggestions that had been made to improve the veterans experience and preserve the War Memorial for many generations to come.
Members were reminded that the matter had already been discussed under Item 7.4 Minutes of Environment Committee dated 10 January 2018.
NOTED.
13. DONAGHADEE’S BIG WEEKEND EVENT – (FILE REF: REG 37) (Appendix VI)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 15 January 2018 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that at the last meeting of the Regeneration and Development Committee it was agreed that a report on Donaghadee’s Big Weekend event should be presented to the Council for consideration for future funding.
Donaghadee’s Big Weekend was a two-day family orientated festival comprising of music, entertainment and market stalls. The festival also had a fireworks display on the Saturday evening.
The purpose of the event was to engage with local businesses, clubs and societies, and attract residents and event attendees into Donaghadee Town Centre, to enjoy the entertainment on offer whilst showcasing what the Town had to offer and encourage spend within the Town.
Donaghadee’s Big Weekend had taken place over the past two years, Saturday 19 and Sunday 20 March 2016 (delivered by Ards and North Down Borough Council) and Saturday 18 and Sunday 19 March 2017 (delivered by Libra Events – external 22
C.31.01.18 supplier). The 2016 event attracted 25,000 attendees, 80% from within the Borough. The 2017 event attracted 19,000 attendees, reduction in numbers being due to bad weather on the Saturday. The economic return for those events had not been evaluated.
Funding for the event had been provided by the Department for Communities, via revitalisation funding. The breakdown of the costs were detailed below:
A total budget of £ 21,735 had been allocated to Donaghadee’s Big Weekend in March 2016.
Revitalisation funding from DSD for event £10,000 Town Centre funding from Council for event £ 5,800 Revitalisation funding from DSD for billboard campaign £ 2,000 Revitalisation funding from DSD for radio campaign £ 3,935
The second event was held in March 2017. The budget was considerably larger as there was revitalisation money that needed to be allocated. The budget was:
Revitalisation funding from DFC for event £24,000 Revitalisation funding from DFC for fireworks display £12,000 Revitalisation funding from DFC for marketing campaign £ 8,875 Additional revitalisation funding from DFC £ 6,000
Total budget £50,875
Appendix One gives further information on the events.
It was important to note that events were held in each of the five towns funded from revitalisation money. If the Council was minded to fund an event in Donaghadee it was more than likely the Chambers in the other four towns would request a similar event in their town.
DFC had confirmed that there was no revitalisation funding available for future events. Therefore, any future allocation would be the sole responsibility of Council. Currently no budget had been allocated in the draft 2018/19 budget for this event.
RECOMMENDED that the Council notes this report.
Councillor T Smith proposed, seconded by Councillor Brooks, that the Council sets aside £30,000 to allow Donaghadee’s Big Weekend event to continue.
Councillor T Smith acknowledged it was highly unlikely funding could be secured for this event from external sources such as Government departments and therefore in his opinion it was something the Council should be supporting. He stated that the event was not only good for the town bringing substantial visitors to it but it also brought financial benefits for many local businesses.
Rising in support the seconder, Councillor Brooks, noted that most of the towns in the Borough hosted their own annual events and he specifically referred to 23
C.31.01.18
Holywood, Groomsport and Portaferry. Therefore, in his opinion Donaghadee was entitled to have its own event, particularly given the huge returns for the town.
Also rising in support, Councillor Martin, referred to work ongoing on the Council’s Tourism Strategy and given the proven fiscal returns associated with this event it was, in his opinion, worthy of Council support.
At this stage Councillor McIlveen stated that to say Donaghadee had no other events was a nonsense and referred to the Ulster Scots event. Continuing he acknowledged that Donaghadee had a wonderfully active Community Association and advised that the Donaghadee Big Weekend event had been funded with the assistance of Revitalisation monies. He added that he was aware four other towns in the Borough had also been able to avail of Revitalisation funds adding that he was content funding for such an event would not be forthcoming from Government Departments. He referred to the success of the Comber Farmers Market and noted that it was heavily supported by farmers and local businesses. Continuing Councillor McIlveen noted the reference made to fiscal return for Donaghadee but stated that there was in fact no return for the Council. In summing up he indicated that he could not support the proposal and instead would need further evidence to convince him of the benefits.
At this stage, the Mayor commented that events did not take place in all towns and villages throughout the Borough.
Alderman Keery stated that he was not aware of this event in Donaghadee but he did refer to the huge crowds which were attracted to the town during the Donaghadee Festival Week. He noted that such large visitor numbers to the town would result in financial rewards for many of the local businesses which in turn would have a spin off for the Council through the payment of rates by those businesses. Therefore, he expressed his support for this proposal brought forward by his Donaghadee colleagues.
Councillor Cathcart urged caution that a dangerous precedent could be set if this proposal were to go ahead. Instead he suggested that alternative sources of funding should be sought and perhaps a strategy considered and he added that he would be voting against the proposal.
(Councillor Barry left the meeting at this stage – 8.50pm)
Councillor Walker rose in support of the concept of a weekend event of festivities in Donaghadee but he did question where the funding would come from for it, therefore he suggested the matter was referred back to Committee for further consideration.
Councillor Walker proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that the Big Weekend issue is referred back to Committee for further discussion and that a revised and costed report be presented reflecting a schedule similar to that of 2016 and a modest Borough wide and Belfast marketing plan based primarily on social media and existing Council channels of communication. In addition, commercial sponsorship should be sought to underwrite the minimal cost.
24
C.31.01.18
(Councillor Barry entered the meeting at this stage – 8.55pm)
Councillor McIlveen expressed some concern that if no commercial sponsorship was secured the Council would be expected to fund the event as an expectation would have been created that the event would be taking place. He reiterated that events should be considered for the entire Borough and not just for specific towns.
Councillor Douglas expressed her support for the proposal.
Voicing concern with the proposal, Councillor Cooper acknowledged that all members had their own interests within their own District Electoral Areas. Therefore, he was mindful that a dangerous precedent could be set if such funding was provided for one event and instead he suggested that events should be considered for each of the Borough’s five towns. Councillor Cooper encouraged the inclusion of the other four towns in the Borough as part of the Integrated Strategy in the amendment and acknowledged the sentiments behind it.
(Councillor Martin entered the meeting at this stage – 8.58pm)
Councillor Boyle indicated that he too was also confused with what was being considered. He stated that for 50 years the Portaferry Gala had operated successfully on a third of that amount of funding and it was an event which was well supported by all including many local businesses. Continuing he suggested that those involved in community events needed to roll up their sleeves, get off their backsides and added that even the street pastors were now involved. In summing up he added that in his opinion the £30,000 was not worthy.
Rising to voice his concerns also, Councillor Edmund noted that only towns had been mentioned to date and no reference made to the 16 villages throughout the Borough.
Alderman Carson concurred with Councillors Boyle and McIlveen’s confusion, particularly as the report had incorporated a recommendation to note.
At this stage the Chief Executive commented that no proposal had been made by any member for the recommendation and instead Councillor T Smith had come forward with his proposal which was subsequently and correctly debated and then an amendment had been put forward by Councillor Walker. He added that this was all within Standing Orders.
(Alderman McDowell left the meeting at this stage – 9.05pm)
Councillor T Smith referred to the recent rates setting process and felt the sum of £30,000 would not have a massive impact on rates. Continuing he noted that other towns throughout the Borough including Bangor, Holywood and Newtownards did receive Council funding for a variety of events. He also took the opportunity to refer to the £200,000 subsidy paid to Exploris adding that in his opinion the draw of visitors to the town and associated spin offs with the Donaghadee Big Weekend event was well worth the £30,000 being sought.
25
C.31.01.18
(Councillor Menagh entered the meeting at this stage – 9.06pm)
At this stage Councillor Gilmour referred to Standing Order 20.19 Mover’s Right of Reply.
Proposed by Alderman Gibson, seconded by Councillor Dunne with 28 voting FOR and 5 voting AGAINST that a vote was taken on the amendment.
On being put to the meeting with 6 voting FOR and 24 voting AGAINST, the proposal FELL.
COMFORT BREAK
The meeting adjourned for a comfort break at this stage – 9.10pm………the meeting recommenced at 9.30pm.
(Councillor Dunne left the meeting at this stage – 9.30pm)
Proposed by Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Alderman Gibson, with 24 voting FOR, 3 voting AGAINST that a vote was taken on the proposal.
Councillor T Smith requested a recorded vote was taken.
(Alderman Girvan and Councillor Martin entered the meeting at this stage – 9.31pm)
On being put to the meeting, Councillor T Smith proposed, seconded by Councillor Brooks, that the Council sets aside £30,000 to allow Donaghadee’s Big Weekend event to continue and with 7 voting FOR, 25 voting AGAINST, 1 ABSTAINING and 7 ABSENT, the proposal was declared LOST.
A recorded vote resulted as follows:
FOR (7) AGAINST (25) ABSTAINING (1) ABSENT (7) Aldermen Aldermen Councillor Aldermen Irvine Fletcher Allen Carson Keery Gibson McDowell Girvan M Smith Councillors Graham Councillors Adair Henry Dunne Brooks Councillors Ferguson Chambers Armstrong-Cotter Leslie Martin Barry McAlpine T Smith Boyle Cathcart Cooper Cummings Douglas Edmund Gilmour 26
C.31.01.18
Kennedy McIlveen McClean Menagh Muir Robinson Smart Thompson Walker Wilson Woods
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Gibson, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the report be noted.
13.1. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE INTEGRATED TOURISM, REGENERATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY - FILE REF: DEVP10
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 25 January 2018 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that the Regeneration, Development and Planning Directorate had been working alongside The Paul Hogarth Company on the development of an Integrated Tourism, Regeneration and Economic Development Strategy.
Following a members’ workshop and feedback on 15 January, 2018 the Strategy was currently being finalised.
It was therefore proposed that a Special meeting of the Regeneration and Development Committee be held on Thursday 22 February, 2018 at 7pm to consider the final document, which would then be ratified by Council at the end of the month. The date had been confirmed with the Chairman of the Committee.
The Consultants would be in attendance.
RECOMMENDED that Council approves a Special meeting of the Regeneration and Development Committee to be held on Thursday 22 February, 2018 at 7pm at the Council Offices in Church Street.
Councillor Cummings proposed, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.
Alderman Girvan proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor T Smith, that a Special Council meeting was held to enable all members to attend.
Alderman Girvan stated that she was aware many members had attended various workshops and meetings to consider the Strategy even though they were not 27
C.31.01.18 members of the Regeneration and Development Committee. Therefore, she felt it was important that all members had the opportunity to consider the final Strategy document.
Concurring with those comments Councillor T Smith agreed that it was important to ensure that all members had an opportunity to consider the Strategy before ratification at Council at the end of the month. Councillor Menagh reminded members that everyone had the opportunity to attend all committee meetings and sit in the public gallery to watch the proceedings. At this stage the Chief Executive advised members that a special meeting of the Regeneration and Development Committee had been suggested to give members the opportunity to consider the final Strategy document further before bringing forward a recommendation to the full Council meeting in February 2018. No delegated powers were being requested.
Councillor McIlveen noted that delegated powers were not being given to the Committee and instead the final Strategy document would come to the Council for ratification. Therefore, he was content with the original recommendation contained in the report.
On being put to the meeting, the amendment proposed by Alderman Girvan, seconded by Councillor T Smith, that a Special Council meeting was held to enable all members to attend, with 8 voting FOR, 17 AGAINST, was declared LOST.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Cummings, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that Council approves a Special meeting of the Regeneration and Development Committee to be held on Thursday 22 February, 2018 at 7pm at the Council Offices in Church Street, Newtownards.
14. TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF BURIAL
There were no Transfers of Rights of Burial.
NOTED.
15. SEALING DOCUMENTS
RESOLVED: - (On the proposal of Alderman Gibson, seconded by Councillor Cooper)
THAT the Seal of the Council be affixed to the following documents: -
(a) Contract between Ards and North Down Borough Council and Core Environmental Solutions (b) James and Claire Phillips and Ards and North Down Borough Council – Lease for 1st floor
28
C.31.01.18
premises at Conway Buildings, South Street, Newtownards (c) Grant of Right of Burial Nos – 12571 to 12592
16. NOTICES OF MOTION STATUS REPORT - FILE REF: CG12172 (Appendix VII)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report from the 24 January 2018 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration attaching a Status Report in respect of Notices of Motion.
This was a standing item on the Council agenda each month and its aim was to keep members updated on the outcome of motions. Please note that as each motion was dealt with it would be removed from the report.
RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the report.
Alderman Graham proposed, seconded by Alderman Keery, that the recommendation be adopted.
At this stage the Mayor stated that he had noted an earlier Notice of Motion submitted by Councillors Edmund and Thompson had been removed from the report without action.
The Chief Executive indicated that he would investigate this and report back to the Mayor in due course. He added that if any other members had concerns about any other Notices of Motion to get in touch with the appropriate officer.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Alderman Keery, that the recommendation be adopted.
17. NOTICES OF MOTION – FILE REF: CG12172
17.1. Notice of Motion submitted by Alderman Irvine
That this Council acknowledges that 2018 marks the centenary of Bangor Football Club and congratulates the club in reaching this important milestone in its history. We praise the major contribution it has made to the sporting life of the Borough throughout the last century and agrees to host a civic reception to mark this special year for the club.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Corporate Committee.
17.2 Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillor Wilson and Councillor McAlpine
That this Council unreservedly condemns on-going paramilitary style assaults occurring in our Borough, affirms without equivocation that responsibility for the upholding and enforcement of Rule of Law within communities plus the
29
C.31.01.18 apprehension and prosecution of offenders rests solely with lawful bodies such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Public Prosecution Service and the Courts, pledges our full and absolute support for the Police in their efforts to apprehend culprits behind these barbaric attacks and urges the public to provide any information that can help apprehend those responsible, detect crime and end the insidious influence that paramilitaries continue to have on communities.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Corporate Committee.
17.3. Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillor Thompson
That this Council, following a Consultation with the Session Members of the Millisle and Ballycopeland Presbyterian Church, and The Millisle Steering Group bring back a report with costs regarding the location, and installation of a Memorial Seat and small Garden, in memory of the Missionary, Amy Carmichael.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Environment Committee.
17.4. Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillors Barry, Robinson and Woods
That this Council, in the interests of the environment, community and reducing waste, brings back a report on how best it would designate and promote itself as 'Refill Ards and North Down' and actively encourages local businesses in the area to sign up to the Refill Scheme and allow the public to fill up their reusable water bottles on their premises.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Woods, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Environment Committee.
17.5. Notice of Motion Submitted by Alderman McDowell and Councillor Muir
This Council notes the substantial opportunities available in light of the planned closure of Kinnegar Logistics Base and agrees that serious consideration should be given to seeking funding for future development as part of the Growth Deal for Belfast City Region, due by September 2018. Furthermore, Council requests officers promptly bring back a report highlighting the process for developing a mixed use Masterplan for the site, which will involve close engagement with local residents, businesses and other key stakeholders, and will produce costed options for regeneration, including transport, public realm and other supporting infrastructure.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Muir, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Regeneration and Development Committee.
17.6. Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillor Chambers
That this council calls on the Department for Infrastructure to remove the Orlock Road, Groomsport from The Roads (Speed Limit) 913) Order (Northern Ireland) 30
C.31.01.18
1997 in the interests of road safety and in so doing restores the original 30 mph limit on it.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Chambers, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Corporate Committee.
17.7. Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillor Cooper
That this council promotes the ‘Is Angela working?’ initiative and encourages all local businesses and stakeholders to encourage awareness to protect those in need of help or protection in a public place.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Robinson, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Community and Wellbeing Committee.
17.8. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor T Smith and Councillor M Brooks
Since the public realm in Donaghadee was handed over to the Council it has become clear that the current street cleansing regime is not sufficient to maintain the footpaths to an acceptable standard. Therefore, given these problems it is requested that a report be brought to Council on the potential for carrying out a deep clean in the area which would include power hosing the streets along with a subsequent programme of appropriate ongoing washing to ensure a high level of cleanliness is maintained
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor T Smith, seconded by Councillor Brooks, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Environment Committee.
17.9. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor M Brooks and Councillor T Smith
This Council asks the Mayor to hold a small reception to recognise the work of the "Donaghadee Dunkers". This is an informal group of people who meet every day to swim in Donaghadee harbour. The numbers have grown over the years and there are occasions where over 100 people from Donaghadee and beyond meet, socialise and exercise together.
Not only has this resulted in many benefits for the participants, helping with physical and mental health as well as providing daily social interaction but the group themselves have over the last number of years carried out a number of charity swims during the Christmas period. This year alone they managed to raise over £9000 for Assisi and Epilepsy Action.
Alderman Graham suggested that Councillor Brooks submitted a formal request to the Mayor’s Secretary seeking the Mayor to host a small reception to recognise the work of the ‘Donaghadee Dunkers’.
31
C.31.01.18
Councillor Brooks indicated that he would be content to withdraw his Notice of Motion.
NOTED.
17.10. Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillor McIlveen
That this Council, in line with the environmental aims under its corporate plan, gives due consideration to the public sector Workplace Charging Scheme when replacing fleet vehicles which can provide grants of up to £4500 off the price of a new electric car and £8000 off the price of a new electric van; applying for electric charging points under the public sector estate programme; the cost effectiveness of investing in an electric pool car or cars as an alternative to mileage payments while promoting the use of low emission vehicles; and requests officers to provide a report to inform those considerations.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Alderman Gibson, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Corporate Committee.
19. EQIA FOR NAMING OF NEW LEISURE FACILITY IN NEWTOWNARDS (Appendix VIII)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 26 January 2018 from the Head of Administration stating that at the Council meeting on 29 November 2017 the Council decided that the name for the replacement Ards Leisure Centre should be ‘Ards Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex’ and agreed that that be subject to the outcome of an Equality Impact Assessment which would be undertaken.
In accordance with the Council’s Equality Scheme this decision was Equality screened. It was identified that the decision should be ‘screened in’ and subject to an EQIA as there were concerns that there could be a potential adverse impact for potential users and employees on the basis of differential impact on four Section 75 grounds, being, religious belief; political opinion; race / ethnic origin; and age. This impact was in relation to Blair Mayne’s military career including being a member of the Special Air Service (SAS).
EQIA Process (Appendix 1)
The EQIA process was set out by the Equality Commission in Guidance and contains seven distinct stages:
1. Define the aims of the policy. 2. Consider available data and research. 3. Make an assessment of impacts. 4. Other factors to consider. 5. Consult on the actual impact of existing policies and the likely impact of proposed policies. 6. Decision by public authority & publication of report on results of EQIA.
32
C.31.01.18
7. Monitoring for adverse impact in the future and publication of the results of such monitoring.
Sections 1 – 4
The Council has completed sections 1-3 and was currently at Section 4 – ‘Other factors to consider’. The EQIA process requires that, if it was decided that the policy had an adverse impact on one or more of the nine Equality categories, then a series of alternatives should be put forward for consideration and an assessment of the possible impact of these alternatives undertaken. The Council must consider measures which might mitigate the adverse impact and alternative ways of delivering policy aims which had a less adverse impact on the relevant Equality category or which better promoted equality of opportunity and good relations.
The Equality Commission Guidance on this section advised that the Council should give consideration to measures which might mitigate any adverse impact; and alternative policies which might better achieve the promotion of equality of opportunity. The guidance stated:
“The consideration of mitigating measures and alternative policies is at the heart of the EQIA process. Different options must be developed which reflect different ways of delivering the policy aims.”
The consideration of those measures was intertwined with the consideration of alternative policies. Mitigation could take the form of lessening the severity of the potential adverse impact.
Ways of delivering policy aims which had a less adverse effect on the relevant Equality category, or which better promote equality of opportunity for the relevant Equality category, must be considered. Consideration must be given to whether separate implementation strategies are necessary for the policy to be effective for the relevant group.
As potential adverse impact had been identified, the Council needed to consider options which could help mitigate against this, should it be necessary. The following options were recommended for inclusion by the Council in Section 4 of the EQIA:
Option 1 Retain the name ‘Ards Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex’.
Option 2 An alternative name is selected for the facility, with no additional measures.
Option 3 An alternative name is selected for the facility, with a room or facility named after Blair Mayne.
Option 4: An alternative name is selected for the facility, and an area of the Complex is used to create a display to recognise Blair Mayne and others from the Borough who have had significant sporting
33
C.31.01.18
achievements, or made a significant contribution to sport and leisure within the Borough i.e. a Hall of Fame.
Section 5 Once the Draft EQIA had been finalised it will be issued for Consultation (see Appendix 2 for a copy of the Draft EQIA). The Consultation period would be open for 12 weeks. The Draft EQIA Report would be made available on the Council’s website together with a questionnaire designed to facilitate ease of response. The Council’s Equality Scheme consultees would be notified of the availability of the report and invited to comment, as would the Council’s External Consultative Panel. A press release would be issued to various media outlets including the Council’s social media, and a public advertisement would be placed in the local press. It was also intended to hold two public meetings in Ards Leisure Centre, and a meeting with Leisure Centre employees. In addition, a questionnaire would be issued to all Council staff (see Appendix 3 for copies of the questionnaires).
Section 6
At the end of the 12 weeks’ consultation period the responses would be considered and analysed and then a final EQIA report drafted. In accordance with the Equality Commission Guidance this report must provide clear evidence of how the Council had given due consideration to mitigate any potential adverse impacts. If appropriate, details of mitigation and plans for its implementation would be presented in the final Report to Council. Justification must be given if any such alternatives were not accepted.
Section 7 Monitoring of potential adverse impact in the future and publication of the results of such monitoring would be undertaken.
RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the appended Draft EQIA and that it is issued for consultation.
The Chief Executive guided members through the report highlighting the salient points contained within it.
Councillor Menagh indicated that while he did not have an issue with the procedure he did have some concern with the early reference to Blair Mayne’s military career including being a member of the Special Air Service (SAS). He asked why reference to his sporting career and achievements had not been made instead at this point of the report. Continuing he noted the proposed workshops and commented that ultimately it would be up to the people and they would decide. He reiterated that the reference to his SAS military should not have been made on the first page of the report.
(Alderman Girvan left the meeting at this stage – 9.46pm)
Rising in support of Councillor Menagh’s comments, Councillor McIlveen agreed that more of an emphasis should have been placed upon Blair Mayne’s sporting prowess. 34
C.31.01.18
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Menagh, that the recommendation be adopted.
EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS
AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the public/press be excluded from the meeting for the undernoted items of confidential business.
20. Item 7.2. Special Corporate Services Committee dated 14 December 2017
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
21. Item 7.8. Special Corporate Services Committee dated 22 January 2018
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
(Alderman Irvine and Councillor Allen & Chambers declared an interest in the next item and left the meeting at this stage – 9.55pm)
22. Item 7.7 Community and Wellbeing Committee dated 17 January 2018
Item 15 Aurora Facility Issues
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
18. RECRUITMENT FOR THE POST OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND PERFORMANCE
*** COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE ***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
35
C.31.01.18
RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC/PRESS
AGREED, on the proposal of Alderman Gibson, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the public/press be re-admitted to the meeting.
Members were advised that in line with Section 47 (1) of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 the audio recording would now recommence.
Circulated for Information
a) Department for Infrastructure – Disabled Persons Parking Places on Roads (Correspondence attached) b) Choice Housing - Annual Report and Accounts 2016-2017 (Correspondence attached) c) Northern Ireland Local Government Commissioner for Standards – Annual Report 2016-17 (Correspondence attached) d) The William Keown Trust – 54th Edition of the Trust’s Newsletter (Copies available from Democratic Services) e) Imtac – Recruitment of New Members (Correspondence attached) f) New Year and Birthday Honours Nominations (Correspondence attached) g) Department for Infrastructure - Two proposals for the installation of 20 MPH Speed Limits (Correspondence attached) h) Department for Infrastructure – Proposal to Revoke Waiting Restrictions (Correspondence attached)
NOTED.
TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated at 10.15pm.
36
ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL
A Special meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council was held in the Town Hall, The Castle, Bangor on Tuesday 13 February 2018 commencing at 7.00pm.
PRESENT:
In the Chair: The Mayor (Councillor Adair)
Aldermen: Carson Henry Fletcher Irvine Gibson Keery Girvan McDowell Graham Smith
Councillors: Allen Gilmour Armstrong- Cotter Kennedy Barry Martin Boyle McIlveen Brooks Menagh Cathcart Muir Chambers Smart Cooper T Smith Cummings Thompson Dunne Walker Douglas Wilson Edmund Woods
Officers: Chief Executive (S Reid), Director of Organisational Development and Administration (W Monson), Director of Community and Wellbeing (G Bannister), Interim Director of Finance and Performance (J Pentland), Head of Finance (S Grieve), Corporate Communications Manager (C Jackson) and Democratic Services Officers (P Foster and M McElveen)
1. PRAYER
The Mayor (Councillor Adair) welcomed everyone to the meeting. He invited the Chief Executive to commence the meeting by reading the Council prayer.
NOTED.
2. APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend were received from Councillors Robinson, Ferguson, McClean and McAlpine.
SpC.13.02.18 PM
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Mayor sought declarations of interest and none were notified.
NOTED.
EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS
AGREED TO RECOMMEND on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the public/press be excluded during the discussion of the undernoted items of confidential business.
4. MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN AND BUDGETS (Appendices I – VI)
***IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC/PRESS
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the public/press be re-admitted to the meeting.
5. ROBUSTNESS OF ESTIMATES AND ADEQUACY OF RESERVES (FILE FIN60)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Chief Executive detailing the undernoted:-
Background Section 4 of the Local Government Finance Act 2011 required the Chief Financial Officer of a council to submit a report on the robustness of the estimates and for the Council to have regard to this report when considering the estimates.
In addition, Section 6 required the Chief Financial Officer of a council to submit a report on the adequacy of reserves and for the Council to have regard to that when considering the estimates.
ROBUSTNESS OF ESTIMATES
The aim of the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) was to give the Council a realistic and sustainable plan that reflected the Council’s priorities and the policy of reasonable Council Rate increases as reflected in the Corporate Plan.
2 SpC.13.02.18 PM
The detailed estimates had been formulated in conjunction with Directors, Heads of Service and Service Unit Managers for the various services and underpin the MTFP, taking into account forecast outturn, current spending plans and likely future demand level and pressures for both revenue and capital expenditure.
The Chief Executive was satisfied that the Medium Term Financial Plan and Budgets Report for 2018/19 (presented at item 4 above), encompassing the capital and revenue budget estimates for 2018/19 (as set out in appendices 1-5), had been prepared in line with the CIPFA Treasury Management Code, Prudential Code and the Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting and is robust.
The Chief Executive, however, was mindful that the 2019/20 and 2020/21 projected district rates increases were well above forecast inflation and that the Strategic Policy and Finance Group would commence an expenditure review shortly.
ADEQUACY OF RESERVES
The Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011 required the Chief Financial Officer of a council to submit a report to council on the adequacy of any proposed level of financial reserves for a financial year.
The Medium Term Financial Plan and Budgets Report for 2018/19 (presented at item 4 above) considered the adequacy of the Council’s financial reserves for the 2017/18 and 2018/19 financial years (as set out in appendix 6). The level of forecast financial reserves was in line with the Council’s aim of a realistic and sustainable plan that reflected the Council’s priorities and the policy of reasonable Council Rate increases.
Cognisance had also been taken of the CIPFA Local Authority Accounting Panel Bulletin 99 (issued July 2014), which gives guidance on the level of reserves and the financing of Council expenditure.
The Chief Executive was content with the adequacy of the Council’s forecast financial reserves for 2017/18 and 2018/19 as set out in Appendix 6 of the Medium Term Financial Plan and Budgets Report for 2018/19.
RECOMMENDED that Council note the report.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Girvan, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that the recommendation be adopted.
6. PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS AND TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT (Appendices VII – VIII)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Interim Director of Finance and Performance attaching Prudential Indicators and Treasury Management Strategy Statement. The report detailed the undernoted:-
Prudential Indicators
3 SpC.13.02.18 PM
The Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011 required the Council to have regard to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s (CIPFA) Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (the Prudential Code) when determining how much money it could afford to borrow. The objectives of the Prudential Code were to ensure, within a clear framework, that the capital investment plans of local authorities were affordable, prudent and sustainable, and that treasury management decisions were taken in accordance with good professional practice. To demonstrate that the Council had fulfilled those objectives, the Prudential Code sets out the indicators that must be set and monitored each year. Those were included in the appendix.
Treasury Management Strategy Statement
The Council was also required to adopt the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice 2011 Edition (the CIPFA Code), which required the Council to approve a treasury management strategy before the start of each financial year.
In addition, the former Department of the Environment (DOE) issued revised Guidance on Local Council Investments in October 2011 that required the Council to approve an investment strategy before the start of each financial year.
The Appendix fulfilled the Council’s legal obligation under the Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011 to have regard to both the CIPFA Code and the DOE Guidance.
RECOMMENDED that Council approve the Prudential Indicators and Treasury Management Strategy Statement for 2018/19 financial year as set out in Appendices 1 and 2.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Girvan, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that the recommendation be adopted.
7. DISTRICT RATES 2018/19 (Appendix IX)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Chief Executive attaching corresponding appendix. The report was to present to Members the proposed district rates for the 2018/19 financial year.
The Special Corporate Services Committee in January had recommended an increase in the district rates of 2.96% on the current years’ rates and the appendix set out the formal calculation.
RECOMMENDED that Council sets for the 2018/19 financial year a non-domestic district rate of 22.3273p in the pound and a domestic district rate of 0.3170p in the pound.
Proposed by Alderman Girvan, seconded by Councillor McIlveen that the recommendation be adopted.
4 SpC.13.02.18 PM
The Mayor expressed his thanks to Alderman Girvan for proposing the medium term financial plan and budgets and to the Members for unanimously agreeing this rate. Striking the rate was an important occasion in the Council year as it provided an opportunity to consider the breadth of work that we planned to deliver in 2018/19. He wished everyone to take a brief moment to reflect on the busy year we have just had and all the work done to enhance provision across a range of service areas.
The Mayor spoke of building upon this in the year to come through further transformation of services – delivering what our customers wanted in the most efficient and effective possible ways. He echoed Alderman Girvan’s sentiments in thanking our Senior Team and, of course, all the staff in the Finance Service for their efforts. With inflation running at 3%, he was pleased that the Council had been able to restrict the rise in the domestic and non-domestic rates to 2.96% – an increase of approximately £1.35 per month for the average householder in Ards and North Down. Of course there would also be a regional rate, which would add to this increase, but that was outside of Council control.
Key initiatives rates would support in 2018/19:
Waste – In 2017 we moved to 2nd place amongst NI Councils in terms of our recycling rate and he thanked all residents who had supported this. The Council would continue to work towards its target of reaching a 65% recycling rate in the Borough by 2020 by making recycling as simple and easy as possible for everyone.
£200k of savings in landfill costs from our improved recycling had been put in our Recycling Community Investment Fund (RCIF). In 2017/18 that had been used to support environmental education, our current anti-dog fouling campaign and the Live Here, Love Here grants scheme. The Council looked forward to delivering more community benefits through this scheme in the coming year.
The Council was continuing to invest in new facilities. Work was ongoing on our new leisure centre in Newtownards, which represented an investment of over £30M. It would open its doors to the public at the end of the year and provide a wide range of modern indoor and outdoor leisure facilities including a fitness suite, swimming pools with children’s splash zone and a high quality spa.
The Mayor advised that the Council would be starting work on 3G pitches in Portavogie and Portaferry, an investment of over £3M. We have made provision of more than £350k for further improvements to public toilets, harbours, pitches and pavilions, along with £225k for new playgrounds at Ballycrochan and Scrabo.
A budget had also been set aside to progress with a feasibility study into three new greenways. We were working with the Department for Infrastructure on that project.
The Council had an excellent programme of events scheduled and would continue to support others to deliver prestigious events locally through our grant aid programme. Those included the Comber Earlies Food Festival, Portavogie Seafood Festival and Sea Bangor.
5 SpC.13.02.18 PM
We were honoured to play our part in the Armistice celebrations and looked forward to beacon lighting ceremonies in November. The Mayor reported that we were also marking this very special anniversary with an investment of £150k to refurbish the war memorials across the Borough.
We would continue to deliver and grow our cultural events programme with the Ards International Guitar Festival, Puppet Festival and Aspects Literary Festival.
The Council had secured £3.3M of PEACE IV funding, which would see the delivery of a range of arts, culture, heritage and sports projects. Council was leading on four shared spaces projects, for new facilities to be constructed in Comber, Holywood, Portaferry and Portavogie by December 2018.
The Mayor highlighted that our new Integrated Tourism, Regeneration and Economic Development Strategy, and Arts and Heritage Strategy would go live in April. They outlined our ambitions for promoting prosperity across the Borough. We were grateful to all who had fed into the development of those documents and who would assist with their delivery in the future.
The Council was preparing its plans, in partnership with five other councils in the Belfast regions, to secure a substantial investment from central and regional government in the form of a ‘City Deal’. That had the potential to contribute significant benefits to our area in terms of infrastructure, innovation and skills.
The Mayor stated that we were also committed to continuing to invest in the staff who make all of the work we do possible. ‘Our People Plan’ launching in April, would help us to prioritise training, communications and engagement initiatives that would help all staff to do their jobs better.
The Mayor was sure that everyone could all agree this was a superb and diverse range of projects. We had much to look forward to but equally much work to do.
He was confident that we all – Members and Officers – would rise to the challenge and deliver for Ards and North Down.
Alderman Girvan commended the commitment of staff for undertaking such a magnificent job and ensuring the Council had reached this stage. There would be challenges ahead that she realised would not be easy to manage but she wished to thank the Corporate Committee for their worthwhile contribution. Councillor McIlveen acknowledged the huge volume of work the process had entailed and he extended his thanks to the Directors and staff involved. Needless to say further endeavours would be required in the future in order to deliver the proposals that had just been outlined. Although the ratepayers would have desired a lower rate, regrettably that was out of the Council’s control but he recognised how the staff had worked to achieve a rate within inflationary limits.
In concurring with previous comments, Alderman Carson paid tribute to the Chairman and Members of the Corporate Committee for their prudence. He also accepted that all staff who participated in the process were deserving of a massive
6 SpC.13.02.18 PM acknowledgement for their worthy efforts adding that they had been under pressure to achieve this rate.
Councillor Barry fully endorsed earlier remarks and brought attention to the long duration of the estimates process each year. He extended his gratitude to Officers for their robustness and diligence whilst praising the Members of the Corporate Committee for their scrutiny and for asking difficult questions. He was confident that the citizens of our Borough would feel reassured that both Members and Officers undertook their roles very seriously.
In agreement with the points raised thus far, Councillor Muir was also appreciative of the hard work required to achieve a rate below that of inflation for the new financial year. He said that he had been asked by many people to ensure it was a low rate because it impacted upon households and businesses alike. He was aware that challenges facing the Council would be substantial requiring very difficult decision making over the next few years. Taking into account the current outlook, he had difficulty in supporting the next forecasts predicting how we spent our money and operated our services.
Alderman Fletcher wished to single out one particular department worthy of a mention, namely the Environment Directorate who were responsible for £2M savings. He believed that to have been extremely laudable as it had required very difficult decisions being made. Undoubtedly it had been a tremendous undertaking and he applauded the work carried out.
UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that Council sets for the 2018/19 financial year a non- domestic district rate of 22.3273p in the pound and a domestic district rate of 0.3170p in the pound.
EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor, Smart, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the public/press be excluded during the discussion of the undernoted items of confidential business.
CIRCULATED FOR INFORMATION
***IN CONFIDENCE***
(i) Report of Special Corporate Services Committee dated 14 December 2017 (ii) Report of Special Corporate Services Committee dated 22 January 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cummings, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the content be noted.
7 SpC.13.02.18 PM
TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated at 7.24 pm.
8 ITEM 8.1.
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 February 2018 at 7.00pm.
PRESENT:
In the Chair: Alderman Fletcher
Aldermen: Carson Henry Gibson McDowell Graham
Councillors: Barry McIlveen Cathcart Smart Dunne Thompson
Officers: Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning (S McCullough), Head of Planning (A McCullough), Senior Professional and Technical Officers (C Rodgers and P Kerr), Principal Professional and Technical Officer (L Maginn), Democratic Services Manager (J Wilson) and Democratic Services Officer (E Brown)
Others: Planning Department’s legal advisor
WELCOME
The Chairman welcomed members and officers to the meeting and made a special mention of those persons with speaking rights and members of the public seated in the public gallery.
1. APOLOGIES
An apology for inability to attend was received from Aldermen Girvan and Keery and Councillor Walker.
NOTED.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No Declarations of Interest were advised.
NOTED.
3. MATTERS ARISING FROM MINUTES
3.1 Planning Committee meeting of 5 December 2017
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes. PC.06.02.18
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the minutes be noted.
4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
4.1. X/2014/0213/F – 20b Greystone Road, Ballywalter
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix I)
. DEA: Ards Peninsula . Committee Interest: A local application called-in to Planning Committee by Head of Planning . Proposal: Commercial vehicle maintenance workshop/garage extension, extension of yard to accommodate turning and parking, and erection of 2.4m high fence for acoustic screening along laneway, area for power washing of lorries and capture of waste detergent . Site Location: 20b Greystone Road, Ballywalter . Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission with amended conditions
The Chairman advised that this item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.
NOTED.
4.2 LA06/2016/1114/F – Land between 24 and 22a Ballyatwood Road, Ballywalter
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix II)
. DEA: Ards Peninsula . Committee Interest: A delegated application called-in by Planning Committee . Proposal: Change of use of side garden to holiday park containing 3 holiday units with associated amenity area, parking and landscaping . Site Location: Land between 24 and 22a Ballyatwood Road, Ballywalter . Recommendation: Refuse Planning Permission
The Head of Planning stated that this was an application for a holiday park in the side garden of a domestic dwelling, comprising of 3 holiday units with associated amenity area, parking and landscaping. The application had appeared on the delegated list on 28 August 2017 as a refusal, but had been called in by Alderman Keery for the following reason:
“to dispute recommended reasons for refusal under Tourism policy”.
Members were shown a number of slides demonstrating the location of the site in relation to the village of Ballywalter and the neighbouring property.
The Head of Planning continued that the main issues to be considered were as follows: 2
PC.06.02.18
• Is principle of development acceptable in countryside? • Does the proposal comply with planning policy? • Impact of character of rural area • Impact on residential amenity.
Continuing she detailed that the proposal consisted of 3 units, 2x two-bedroom self- catering ‘cabins’, capable of accommodating 4 adults, each with two shower rooms, and one ‘pod’ which could accommodate two adults and two small children, with one shower room. Materials proposed consisted of timber cladding to walls and tile effect metal roofing with hardstanding patio areas to the front of each. It was noted that the garage had been approved in 2007 as a new garage with playroom above. The first floor was currently being utilised as a self-contained self- catering apartment and was advertised on websites for renting. The upper floor of the garage, approved as a playroom, was being used as a holiday let without planning permission and no Lawful Use Certificate had been applied for. The matter was currently under investigation by the Planning Department’s Enforcement section. The Planning Department had recommended refusal for the following reasons as follows:
Following submission of further information after the application had been called in, only one of those reasons could now be removed. The application had been submitted as a new holiday park and the relevant policy to be considered under was Policy TSM 6 in PPS 16: Tourism. The definition of a ‘holiday park’ in PPS 16 for the purpose of the policy was defined as a caravan site, which in addition to static caravans, may also contain holiday chalets. The site being considered was not a proposal for caravans in the first instance. Despite the proposal description as submitted, it had then been assessed under Policy TSM 5. The most appropriate criterion had been considered to be (b), however the proposal was not considered to be provided at or close to an existing or approved tourist amenity and the definition within the PPS was highlighted. Proposals for tourist accommodation also had to comply with other criteria set out at Policy TSM 7. An objection had been received from the neighbouring property in respect of, among other things:
• Noise and disturbance • Impact on peace and tranquillity of countryside • Site not close to any tourist attraction
Environmental Health stated that amendments suggested to the scheme in the form of the introduction of a bank as a barrier to noise with proposed planting atop, would result in minimal noise attenuation as would a reduction in seating in the form of picnic tables as there was no control over the number of people using the area or sitting outside the cabins. It would also not be possible for Planning to attempt to enforce the number of picnic tables by way of condition. Environmental Health further stated that outdoor noise of holidaymakers was hard to control and manage. It had not been demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on amenity of the adjoining domestic property and surrounding rural area. In
3
PC.06.02.18 addition to the failure of the proposal to comply with policy, approval of such a proposal within the side garden of a dwelling would set a harmful precedent and encourage other forms of self-catering tourist accommodation in the countryside, causing detrimental change to the rural landscape and harming the existing character that they wished to protect.
The Head of Planning concluded that refusal was therefore recommended.
The Chairman then sought questions from Members.
Councillor McIlveen queried how close the site was to a tourist amenity. In response, the Head of Planning advised that the issue lay in the definition of ‘tourist amenity’, that being that it ‘provided primarily for tourists’; it was not defined what the site had to be close to.
Councillor McIlveen queried the distance the site would have to be from a tourist amenity e.g. 500 yards or a mile. The Head of Planning clarified that the application did not comply with the definition of a holiday park and whilst the definition of a tourist amenity could be open to interpretation e.g. close to the beach, there was ambiguity about what was being proposed in the application.
Alderman Gibson sought clarity on the number of units being applied for and the Head of Planning advised that it was for one pod, which would sleep two adults and two children, and two separate cabins which each slept four adults.
Alderman Gibson purported that what was being proposed could itself be an amenity. He noted that in the past if a need for accommodation was identified that permission would be granted; he knew of a situation when an application for twelve units had been approved on the basis that there had to be three or more to comply. The Head of Planning responded that the policy had been introduced in June 2013 and it was specific about there being three or more units at or close to a tourist amenity. She reiterated that they did not consider the proposed accommodation to be an amenity in itself in the context of the policy.
Councillor Barry queried what constituted a holiday park and the Head of Planning referred to PPS16 which stated that a caravan site would be licensed under the Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 2011; the site may also contain chalets and areas for tenting. She stressed that the site under discussion was not a licensed site and no licence had been applied for. The Chairman reiterated that the current accommodation on the site had been developed without permission and therefore there was already a breach of planning permission on the site.
The Head of Planning continued that in addition to the lack of planning approval, no Certificate of Lawfulness had been applied for. In another context it was recognised in case law (the Saxby Principle) that one could not seek to extend an existing use through an application for planning permission when the existing use was not lawful.
At this stage in the meeting, the Chairman invited Mr Ewart Davis to address the meeting speaking against the decision to refuse planning permission.
4
PC.06.02.18
Mr Davis gave an overview of the site and surrounding area including that access to the site was through a 1.8m frontage wall and that there were extensive existing landscaped gardens which would remain intact. There was also a 3m wide strip of mature planting and mature 6m high hedge. He believed that due to the existing mature boundary the proposed units would be well integrated into the site; the units would also provide a sustainable tourist industry and would not detract from the surrounding landscape. He highlighted that the proposed site lay on the primary route linking the Belfast Metropolitan Area to the Ards Peninsula and the Mournes beyond. It was set in a good countryside location, near to Greyabbey and Ballywalter, close to major attractions such as Mount Stewart, Ballywalter Harbour and beach and also close to an Ulsterbus route; it would provide accommodation for the budget end of the market and it was hoped to attract those with young children to the facility.
On a differing stance Mr Davis advised that he had provided amended access information including that a 3m wide planting strip would be incorporated into the design. The social area would also be re-sited to the south west corner of the site. He continued that the applicant had been providing tourist accommodation for over six years and now wished to expand that provision; the Tourist Board had given its seal of approval to that accommodation.
Finally, Mr Davis referred to three similar schemes for camping pods which had been considered and approved under PPS Policy TSM6 as follows:
LA10/2017/0402/F – two camping pods at Enniskillen – approved on 6 July 2017 LA07/2015/1376/F – four holiday units at Leitrim – approved on 25 November 2016 R/2012/0322/F – three camping pods at 22 Ringhaddy Road – approved on 16 September 2015
That concluded the speech and the Chairman welcomed questions from Members.
Councillor Barry queried whether Mr Davis accepted that the facility currently being operated was doing so unlicensed and without planning permission. Mr Davis responded that the facility had been operating for six years and therefore was immune from enforcement.
Councillor Barry stated he could not see permission being granted on a site where the existing development had not been granted permission. Whilst he supported the promotion of tourism in the Borough he expressed concern about the danger of setting a precedent where people would use their own back gardens for accommodation. He asked again if Mr Davis accepted that planning permission had not been granted for the existing accommodation. In response, Mr Davis acknowledged that, however he purported that the current application would comply on the basis that it was similar to the three cases referred to earlier, none of which had existing tourist accommodation and the application was for similar camping accommodation.
5
PC.06.02.18
Alderman Gibson commented that the site at Ringhaddy in the Ards and North Down area would perhaps overlook Strangford Lough and he queried whether the site in Ballywalter was closer to approved amenities. Mr Davis responded that the entire Ards Peninsula was a tourist area however the sites at Leitrim and Enniskillen were not even near any tourist facilities. He added that if other Councils were keen to encourage tourism and tourist accommodation, it would be disappointing if the site did not get approval given the examples referred to.
In response to a query from Alderman Graham, Mr Davis advised that the site was 0.25 hectare which was 0.65 acre.
Referring to access onto the road and intensification of traffic, Alderman Graham asked whether Mr Davis was satisfied those difficulties could be overcome. Mr Davis responded that site splays had been drawn up and Transport NI had confirmed it had no objections and therefore there was no traffic safety issue.
In response to a query from Councillor McIlveen, Mr Davis advised that they were applying under PP16 Tourism Policy and he confirmed that no caravans would be put on the site. Councillor McIlveen pointed out that this meant it could not be classed as a holiday park. Mr Davis responded that in other areas, Councils had been keen to accept proposals aimed at the lower end of the market as similar to caravan parks. Councillor McIlveen understood that, however he referred back to the definition of a holiday park as that was the policy they had to work within. He asked Mr Davis where he believed officers had gone amiss in their presentation of objections and he added that his issue was in respect of the licensed holiday park and where that fitted in.
Mr Davis responded that it could be accepted under TSM5. He acknowledged there was an unauthorised facility at the site and suggested a Certificate of Lawfulness could be applied for as the business had been operating for over six years. Councillor McIlveen pointed out that as there was currently no Certificate it was not something the Committee could consider.
At this stage the Head of Planning responded to Mr Davis’s comments about the three examples he had provided of similar schemes. She advised that nowhere in the report was it stated that the Planning department or the Council wanted to deter tourism. The report purely set out the reasons why the application did not comply with policy and the concerns raised by Environmental Health. She referred to the scheme in Enniskillen and advised that this had been treated as an extension to an existing facility which was a guesthouse, with a proposal for pods in the site curtilage; that application complied with TSM7 as it was an existing and ongoing tourist facility. The scheme in Leitrim had initially been recommended for refusal with five reasons, however it was subsequently reconsidered on the basis that it was subject to a rural funding application and that was a material consideration that that council considered outweighed the refusal Planning reasons. She then highlighted that the scheme in Ringhaddy was not in the Borough, but in Down and it had been considered to comply as it was a new holiday park located near Strangford Lough and initially had been proposed as canoe pods for canoeists exploring the Lough. In light of all that, the current application was not considered akin to those schemes and the Planning Committee was not bound by the decisions of other Councils. 6
PC.06.02.18
The Chairman thanked Mr Davis, who returned to the public gallery.
Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the recommendation be adopted. Councillor Barry wished to place on record that his proposal was made with regret and he encouraged the applicant to engage with the Council and Rural Partnership Programme.
Rising in support, Councillor McIlveen also echoed those sentiments and commented that if the Certificate of Lawfulness had been in place, the Committee would have had to consider it. He also expressed slight concern about the first refusal reason.
Alderman Graham believed the proposal was an excellent concept and did not support all the refusal reasons. He pointed out that families in their own gardens could create a lot of noise. He noted that pods were essentially luxury tents and were more suitable for the local climate. He hoped the applicant would consult with LAG and he supported the applicant but also appreciated the concerns raised.
Councillor Cathcart expressed the same sentiment and whilst he supported the proposed recommendation, he wanted the Local Development Plan to explore the issues further.
The proposal was put to the meeting and with 9 voting FOR, 3 AGAINST and 3 ABSENT it was declared carried.
FOR (9) AGAINST (3) ABSTAINED (0) ABSENT (3) Aldermen Alderman Aldermen Carson Graham Girvan Fletcher Councillor Keery Gibson McIlveen Councillor Henry Thompson Walker McDowell Councillors Barry Cathcart Dunne Smart
The Chairman commented that the decision was regretful and he hoped to see the applicant back under different circumstances.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the recommendation be adopted and that Planning Permission be refused.
4.3. LA06/2016/0742/F – Lands 120m south east of No.5 Pyper’s Hill, Portavogie
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix III) 7
PC.06.02.18
. DEA: Ards Peninsula . Committee Interest: A delegated application called-in by Planning Committee . Proposal: Proposed dwelling and garage . Site Location: Lands 120m south east of No.5 Pyper’s Hill, Portavogie . Recommendation: Refuse Planning Permission
The Senior Professional and Technical Officer stated that Item 4.3 was an application seeking full planning permission for a farm dwelling and garage on lands 120m south east of 5 Pyper’s Hill, Portavogie. The recommendation was to refuse planning permission. The application had been called in for determination by the Planning Committee.
The site was located to the west of the settlement of Portavogie and the applicant’s dwelling and outbuildings were within the village. Outline permission for a farm dwelling had previously been granted on the site on 24 February 2012; that permission had now lapsed and could not be implemented.
PPS21 – CTY10 provided the relevant policy context for the application.
Planning permission would be granted for a dwelling on a farm where all of the following criteria could be met:
Criterion (a) The farm business was currently active and had been established for at least 6 years;
DAERA’s consultation response confirmed that the business had not claimed single farm payment or other farm subsidies since 2013. The applicant had not submitted any other evidence to demonstrate that the business was currently active. It had been indicated in correspondence that the land was currently let out in conacre. Letting out land in conacre was not in itself considered an agricultural activity. Indeed, in November 2017, the Planning Committee had refused another application for a farm dwelling on those grounds.
Criterion (b) No dwellings or development opportunities had been sold off from the farm holding within 10 years of the date of the application.
Correspondence submitted on behalf of the applicant confirmed a site had been sold off from the holding in 2014 and that had been verified through land registry checks, therefore the proposal could not comply with that part of the policy.
Criterion (c) The new building was visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm.
The proposal also failed that part of the policy. The previous 2012 outline permission had failed to meet that aspect of the policy but had been approved on the basis of former DOE guidance which stated that where there were no buildings on the farm, the site should comply with Policies CTY13, 14 & 16. However, that DOE guidance had been found to be unlawful by the courts in the case of the Lamont JR in Jan 8
PC.06.02.18
2014. The court had held that the DOE guidance had amounted to the creation of more policy and therefore should have been composed within the guidelines set out in the Planning (NI) Order 1991. Therefore, the proposal should be considered in the context of the proper interpretation of Policy CTY10.
Policy CTY10 sets out very specific exceptional circumstances where consideration may be given to an alternative site, provided there were no other sites available at another group of buildings on the farm, and where there were either:
Demonstrable health and safety reasons; Or verifiable plans to expand the farm business at the existing building group.
The policy footnote stated that an applicant would be required to submit appropriate and demonstrable evidence from a competent and independent authority to justify an alternative site. The applicant’s agent contended that as the existing farm buildings were on the opposite side of Main Road to the farm land the site would provide a safer solution by preventing the need for movement across a busy road. There was no evidence to suggest any frequent movement of cattle or machinery across the road. Indeed, the applicant had not submitted any evidence to demonstrate that the business was currently active and supporting statements indicated that the land was let out in conacre. Therefore, it followed that there could be no persuasive exceptional circumstances to justify any alternative site.
The previous permission had lapsed and there was no fall-back position on that site. The Head of Planning in conjunction with the Council’s legal team had issued a letter to the applicant’s solicitors highlighting the policy requirements of CTY10 and the need for evidence to support the same. No such evidence had been submitted and it was acknowledged that a site had been sold off from the holding in 2014. Given the change in relevant planning considerations and circumstances since the previous 2012 permission determining weight had to rest with the need to comply with policy. The proposal did not now comply with any of the criteria contained within Policy CTY10. As there were no overriding reasons why that development was essential and could not be located in a settlement the proposal failed to comply with Policy CTY1. Therefore, it was recommended the application be refused.
At this stage the Chairman invited questions from Members.
Alderman Gibson asked, when the application had been approved in 2012, was it acceptable under CTY10. The Officer confirmed that it had, however Criteria A was concerned with whether the farm business was currently active and the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that. She added that since the 2012 approval, a development opportunity had also been sold off.
Alderman Gibson sought clarity on whether applications had been not approved in the past when they were not conacre and that because land was being actively used it was accepted. The Officer responded that the applicant was claiming single farm payments up to 2013 and she reiterated that the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that the farm business was active and they had not.
9
PC.06.02.18
Councillor Barry expressed the view that significant emphasis seemed to be placed on the Farm ID. He queried what else would count as evidence of an active farm business. In response, the Officer advised that details of farm income, tax returns, livestock information and bank statements could all be acceptable forms of evidence.
Councillor Barry raised a query about the inclusion of health and safety and the Officer advised consideration was given on a case by case basis and she reiterated that the onus was on the applicant to justify an alternative site and provide evidence to support it. The applicant had not demonstrated that a farm business was currently active and so it logically followed that there were no health and safety reasons to justify an alternative site.
Councillor McIlveen commented about conacre and he noted that land had been sold off; he queried whether that had been sold off for a dwelling. In response, the Officer clarified that permission for a dwelling on the site had been granted in 2014. Subsequently, according to Land Registry, the site had been registered to Mr Young in 2015 and then sold off, therefore the proposal could not comply with part (b) of the Policy.
At this stage in the meeting, the Chairman invited Mr David Donaldson to address the meeting speaking against the decision to refuse planning permission.
Mr Donaldson stated that there were important material considerations that he believed had not been given sufficient weight to. He continued that the nature of the Policy was to provide general guidance and was not a set of rules. He noted that planning permission had been granted for a dwelling on the site in 2012 and that would last for five years. No reserved matters had been submitted within the three- year period due to unforeseen circumstances in the applicant’s family and a significant downturn in the prosperity of the family construction business. He stressed that a new application had been submitted in 2016 which was within the five-year life of the previous approval for outline planning permission. He provided further detail about the factors leading to the delay in the submission of the detailed application and those that had resulted in the reserved matters not being lodged within the three-year period. He stressed that the human factor should not be excluded in the consideration of the application.
Continuing, Mr Donaldson stated that previous DOE guidance stated that positive consideration should be given to applications made after the three-year outline period but within five years of the decision. He stressed that this had never formally been withdrawn. He further stated that Planning Policy should not be interpreted in the same way as legislation as decision makers should have the flexibility to ensure that decisions were taken in the public interest. He added that Planning history was an important material consideration to which appropriate weight had to be given. In the current case, the history amounted to an exceptional circumstance which was sufficient to outweigh a rigid interpretation of the CTY10 criteria.
Mr Donaldson did not believe a precedent would arise if permission was granted in this case because the Planning history, allied to the compelling personal circumstances of the applicants were case specific and were unlikely to be repeated.
10
PC.06.02.18
Mr Donaldson concluded that this was a case where the Committee could adopt a degree of flexibility in its interpretation of Policy in order to arrive at a decision which would be sustainable and in the public interest. Had the applicants not suffered significant personal and financial distress in recent years, the 2012 permission would have been implemented by now. The small delay which arose in the submission of the detailed plans should not, in his view, be regarded as being of sufficient magnitude to now deny the applicant the opportunity to establish their previously approved farmhouse in a location which was central to their farm holding. Accordingly, he urged the Committee to give determining weight to the Planning history and family circumstances and grant permission for the dwelling.
At this stage, the Chairman invited questions from Members.
Alderman Gibson queried whether the new application superseded the 2014 approval for a site which had since been sold off and which normally would therefore not be granted approval and Mr Donaldson confirmed that was the case. He acknowledged that normally a new application would not be granted permission, however given the history of the applicant he was seeking leniency in that regard. He stated that the original site had been sold due to business difficulties and at the time of the sale the permission granted in 2012 was still live. The circumstances that followed had prevented development of the site at that time.
The Chairman commented that if foundations had been laid at the time, the permission would have been allowed to run indefinitely. However, Mr Donaldson advised that the 2012 approval was only for outline permission and therefore no development could take place until approval of the reserved matters which were not submitted in time, thus leading to the submission for full planning permission in 2016.
Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the recommendation be adopted.
The proposal was put to the meeting and with 8 voting FOR, 4 AGAINST and 3 ABSENT it was declared carried.
FOR (8) AGAINST (4) ABSTAINED (0) ABSENT (3) Aldermen Alderman Aldermen Carson Graham Girvan Fletcher Gibson Keery Henry Councillor Councillor McDowell Dunne Walker Councillors McIlveen Barry Cathcart Smart Thompson
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the recommendation be adopted and that Planning Permission be refused. 11
PC.06.02.18
4.4. LA06/2016/1111/F – 40m north of 5 Moate Road, Comber
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix IV)
. DEA: Comber . Committee Interest: Local application with 6 or more objections from separate addresses . Proposal: Dwelling and garage on farm . Site Location: 40m north of 5 Moate Road, Comber . Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission
The Senior Professional and Technical Officer informed members that Item 4.4 was seeking full planning permission for a farm dwelling and garage on lands 40m north of 5 Moate Road, Comber.
The recommendation was to approve planning permission.
The application was being presented to the Committee for determination as 10 separate individual objections had been received.
The site was located to the north of 5 Moate Road and was within the Strangford and Lecale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as per the Ards and Down Area Plan 2015.
PPS21, Policy CTY10 provided the relevant policy context for the application.
Planning permission would be granted for a dwelling on a farm where all of the following criteria could be met:
Criterion (a) The farm business was currently active and had been established for at least 6 years;
That had been verified by DAERA’s consultation response which confirmed that the Farm Business ID had been in existence for more than 6 years and the business had claimed Single Farm Payment in the previous year.
Criterion (b) No dwellings or development opportunities had been sold off from the farm holding within 10 years of the date of the application.
A history search of the farm land had been carried out and the Planning Department was satisfied that no sites had been sold off from the holding during that period.
Criterion (c) The new building was visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm.
The proposal clustered and visually linked with the main farm group and therefore satisfied that aspect of the policy. The existing vehicular access served a busy farmyard and it was considered the proposed new access could be achieved without
12
PC.06.02.18 detriment to integration. DFI Roads offered no objection to the proposal in terms of road safety.
As the proposal complied with Policy CTY10 it was acceptable in principle in the countryside.
The proposal would read as part of the established farm group and due to the low ridge height, set back location and sensitive rural design it would integrate into the surrounding landscape and would be sympathetic to the character of the locality and the wider AONB.
To conclude, having weighed all material considerations the proposed farm dwelling was considered to be in accordance with current planning policy therefore it was recommended that planning permission be granted.
Alderman Graham sought further information on the nature of the objections.
The Officer advised that there was a wide range including alleged legal issues, construction noise and disturbance (however that would be temporary), road traffic safety, impact on wildlife and protected species and their habitats.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Alderman Henry, that the recommendation be adopted and that Planning Permission be granted.
4.5. LA06/2017/1083/F – 8 Enterprise Road, Bangor
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix V)
. DEA: Bangor Central . Committee Interest: A local application which is a departure from the Development Plan and which is recommended for approval . Proposal: Proposed change of use from car rental business to an indoor high rope course and ancillary café . Site Location: 8 Enterprise Road, Bangor . Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission
The Senior Professional and Technical Officer informed members that the application was seeking full planning permission for a change of use from car rental business to an indoor high rope course and ancillary development which constituted a café at 8 Enterprise Road, Bangor. The application had been brought before the Planning Committee for consideration as it involved a departure from the Development Plan and was being recommended for approval. The application constituted a departure from the Plan as it proposed a non-employment use within an area zoned as existing employment in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan. The Plan specified that acceptable employment uses within employment zonings should include uses falling under Class B of the Use Classes Order which included business, light industrial, general industry and storage and distribution. The proposed use would therefore not fall within that definition as it would be considered a ‘sui generis’ use. 13
PC.06.02.18
Site and Surroundings - The site was located within the development limit of Bangor and was within the Existing Employment Zoning BR07-Balloo Road/Newtownards Road. The site was located within an industrial park in Bangor. Presently, the site consisted of a vacant commercial unit. The most recent use of the unit had been a car rental business with associated office which had been granted permission in March 2006. While the area was zoned in BMAP as existing employment under designation BR07, there was already a diverse range of uses within the immediate vicinity of the site.
The proposal would primarily constitute an internal fit-out with the materials and finishes of the building remaining largely as existing apart from an extraction system for the café and new entrance with glazing. The majority of the floor space would be occupied by the high ropes area itself with ancillary areas comprising a café, seating, toilets, reception, offices, lockers and instruction area. In-curtilage parking was available immediately to the front of the building and additional parking was available adjacent to the wide laneway and communal parking in front of other units. 37 spaces were available and 19 would be required. Transport NI had no objections.
Consideration of the Development Plan and Planning Policy - As well as the development plan considerations, the main regional planning policies of particular relevance to that case included those contained within the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland and Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning and Economic Development.
The SPPS stated that planning permission should not normally be granted for proposals that would result in the loss of land zoned for economic development use. In that case the proposal would not lead to net loss of Employment use as the previous use for a car rental business had been a sui generis use also. In fact, as the unit was currently vacant, there would be an expected increase of five employees if the proposal was to be approved.
It was also considered that the sui generis use would constitute an exception to policy PED7 of PPS4 as it would be compatible with the surrounding uses. The proposal was therefore considered to be in compliance with the policy requirements of the SPPS and PPS4.
With regard to compatibility, the businesses within that designation were made up of various use classes: those included 17% Financial and professional, 14% business use, 22% light industrial, 14% storage and distribution and 22% sui generis. That would indicate that this sui generis use would be compatible within that zoning. Furthermore, it was considered that adequate land for industrial and employment use would remain within the Bangor area. There was 35.77ha of land remaining to be developed within Bangor relating to existing employment zonings (BR05-11). That figure rose to 73.6ha when taken for the entirety of the Borough.
Having weighed up all of the material considerations and having particular regard to the existing uses within the area and the substantial amount of land still available for employment use within Bangor, it was considered that the approval of the change of use would not result in any significant loss of land or buildings zoned for employment 14
PC.06.02.18 use and would not prejudice the implementation of the overall aims and objectives of the plan. It was therefore considered that the proposed use was acceptable at that location and it was recommended that Full Planning Permission should be granted.
Councillor McIlveen commented that the main point was the sui generis use and that sometimes zoned areas were lost, however in that case it was a vacant unit which previously had a sui generis use.
Councillor McIlveen proposed, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the recommendation be adopted.
Rising in support, Councillor Cathcart queried the restricted Sunday opening hours and the Officer advised that the conditions had been suggested by Environmental Health. She confirmed that the business would be conditioned to open at 1.00pm instead of the 10.00am suggested.
Councillor Barry echoed Councillor McIlveen’s comments and he noted that the Committee had substantial leeway with the proposal and could exercise it, unlike the constraints they had faced with the application they had considered earlier in the meeting. He noted it was a positive development for that part of Bangor and would have ancillary benefits for surrounding businesses.
Alderman Graham expressed concern about the incorporation of cafes into such premises as he believed they were more of a town centre business and yet they were becoming more common. He asked if it had ancillary use and the Officer confirmed that was the case and it would be ancillary and this would be evident in the context of the high ceilings in the building required for the main use.
Also rising in support, Councillor Smart asked if consideration had been given to the length of time the property had been vacant. The Officer responded that whilst she was not aware of the length of the vacancy, the property had been vacant at her initial site visit and at subsequent visits. The property was considered suitable for the proposal given the amount of available land for such a facility.
Alderman McDowell supported the proposal, particularly as it would create job in the area. He acknowledged the challenge in respect of the amount of available industrial land in the Borough and he expressed concern that the figures being quoted did not reflect what was actually available. He did not believe there was plenty of industrial land available.
The Chairman concurred with those comments and he believed industrial reserves were being eroded away and instead they should be kept for the area development plan.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the recommendation be adopted and that Planning Permission be granted.
15
PC.06.02.18
4.6. LA06/2017/0212/F – 3 Park Drive, Bangor
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix VI)
. DEA: Bangor Central . Committee Interest: Application relating to land in which the Council has an interest . Proposal: Proposed change of use and refurbishment of existing building to a café, including alterations . Site Location: 3 Park Drive, Bangor . Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission
The Head of Planning took members through this proposal which was within the boundary of Ward Park. It was a building that has previously been leased to North Down Cycle Club and was now proposed for use as a small café unit to provide for park users and those utilising the adjacent library.
In response to a query from Councillor Cathcart, the Head of Planning confirmed that no objections had been raised by N I Water. Furthermore, the proposal was purely to provide indoor café facilities. It was possible that takeaway options would be provided and as such bins were proposed for the outdoor area to mitigate littering. She also advised that the cycling club that had previously occupied the building and had moved out in 2015, had since approached the Council about using the building again if the café proposal did not transpire or was not successful.
Councillor Barry believed it was a good proposal for a change of use, however he expressed concern about the risk of littering and the danger of that becoming an eyesore. He stated it was another economic link in that part of Bangor and would also align with Council events held in Ward Park.
(Alderman Carson left the meeting at this stage – 8.26pm)
Councillor McIlveen expressed concern about the parking situation in that area and the added pressure a commercial unit may bring to that. He was surprised that there had been no objections raised by the surrounding domestic properties.
Alderman Graham queried whether the café would be producing any fried food as that would raise concern given the close proximity to a residential area. He reported that the building had originally been built as an air raid shelter. The Head of Planning referred to the condition included, restricting deep fried food, but would confirm with Environmental Health regarding whether fried food was acceptable.
Rising in support Alderman Gibson queried whether good weather would encourage chairs and tables to be placed outside of the café and whether that was a Planning consideration.
In response, the Head of Planning clarified that the proposal was purely for the inside of the building and she advised that this matter would probably fall under the remit of Pavement Café Licencing and as such if they wished to have outdoor
16
PC.06.02.18 seating they would have to apply for that licence. She pointed out that it was a Council owned building on Council land.
Alderman Henry noted that they could have great difficulty cutting a window into the wall of the building given that they were extremely thick and reinforced walls. The building would therefore restrict what could be done to it and there would be other restrictions to consider.
The Head of Planning advised that the Lands team was dealing with the proposed letting and it would be a matter for the lease.
The Chairman suggested they could consider applying to have the building listed, particularly given its close proximity to the big gun in Ward Park which also had historical significance.
RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the recommendation be adopted and that Planning Permission be granted.
5. UPDATE ON PLANNING APPEALS (Appendix VII)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 4 January 2018 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning, attaching appeal decision for Item 1 providing an update on Planning Appeals as detailed below.
Decisions
1. The following appeal had been dismissed on 22 December 2017
Appeal reference: 2017/A0080 Application Reference: LA06/2016/0313/O Appeal by: Mr and Mrs D Jamison Subject of Appeal: Refusal of Outline Planning Permission for a dwelling on a farm Location: Lands approx. 20m to the south of 91 Ballybunden Road, Kilmood
The Council had refused this decision on 5 April 2017 for the following reasons:
The development was contrary to Policy CTY 10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and did not merit being an exceptional case in that it had not been demonstrated that the proposed new building was visually linked or be sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and would not be accessed from an existing lane.
The development was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 21 CTY 8 in that the proposed new dwelling would add to a ribbon of development along the Ballybunden Road.
17
PC.06.02.18
The Commissioner had upheld both reasons for refusal and dismissed the appeal.
New Appeals Lodged
2. The following appeal had been lodged with the Planning Appeals Commission on 9 December 2017.
Appeal reference: 2017/A0185 Application Reference: LA06/2016/0228/F Appeal by: Dr Christopher McGimpsey Subject of Appeal: Refusal against conversion of building to dwelling Location: 106 Glen Road, Comber, BT 5QT
3. The following appeal had been lodged with the Planning Appeals Commission on 7 December 2017.
Appeal reference: 2017/A0183 Application Reference: LA06/2017/0309/O Appeal by: Mrs B, Miss J and Mr J Robertson Subject of Appeal: Refusal against new dwelling and garage with proposed entrance paired with the access of 30 Ballyrogan Road, Newtownards Location: Lands contained between 30 and 32 Ballyrogan Road, Newtownards
Details of appeal decisions, new appeals and scheduled hearings could be viewed at www.pacni.gov.uk.
RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation be adopted.
6.1 UPDATE FROM LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP) MEMBER ENGAGEMENT WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 23 January 2018 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning providing an update from LDP Member Engagement Workshop Programme as detailed below.
1.0 Background
1.1 Members would be aware of the ongoing presentation of position papers and associated capacity engagement workshops in respect of the Local Development Plan (LDP). The purpose of the report was to provide feedback on issues emerging from the workshops held to date.
18
PC.06.02.18
2.0 Update from workshops
2.1 Six workshops had been held over the months September, October and November 2017. The workshops had provided an opportunity to enhance the capacity of Members and other Council officials in relation to the topic areas which were being examined as an evidence base for the Local Development Plan. The participation of Members was regarded as a vital initial means of gathering views on the range of LDP themes and reflecting the nuance of issues faced across the DEAs of the Borough.
2.3 The workshops had had active participation from Elected Members across the Council spectrum, Council officers and the LDP team. The workshops (of which the series was ongoing) provided an opportunity for engagement, open discussion and questioning. They served to inform direction for preparation of the Ards and North Down LDP and in particular the Preferred Options Paper (POP) - of which it was intended to consult on that year.
2.4 General outcomes from the workshops included:
Acknowledgement by Members of the supporting evidence and preparatory position papers.
Constructive participation from Members. The workshops had allowed Members to discuss their understanding of the theme and progressed to discussion on how the new LDP could potentially seek to do things differently.
Members were aware that participation enabled consideration of issues ahead of production of the POP.
Attendance was cross Council and not limited to the Planning Committee.
3.0 Summary of Workshop Feedback
3.1 Town centres and retailing
Review district centres Had to serve the large swathes of new housing to eastern edges of Newtownards Out of centre -floor space should be restricted Future of Castlebawn? Not housing. Must link to Town Centre Approach to rural retailing must be sensitive - cautious approach required Support for shops opening in smaller settlements – no shop in Portavogie Council should not provide obstacles Need to be sympathetic to villages/small towns protecting existing retail offering Examine the retail hierarchy for the Borough.
19
PC.06.02.18
3.2 Employment and Industry
Zoned employment land should be protected/secured LDP had to ensure adequate job creation and supply of employment land Lots of opportunity in the future/Need to think strategically Review planning requirements and KSRs Time taken to get permission Need for public transport improvements Potential for mixed use Zonings had been designed for large factories – never going to be occupied (too large) Managed development - want to see dispersed opportunities but could not be a free for all in the countryside Flexibility was required – fluid interpretation, allow for small units and larger if required, buildings and land? 15-year view required flexibility and adapting to changes Had to consider compatibility with adjacent land uses – if not considered, that may result in problems for businesses LCCC building road to serve an employment site. Why could ANDBC not do the same? Links with ITRDS and future Economic Development Forum - needed viewpoint and to link in with local business and entrepreneurs. Find out need and supply needs Needed to encourage a collaborative approach e.g. Portaferry Regeneration Fund renovated buildings to encourage economic use/development
3.3 Tourism
Encourage existing assets Explore tourism opportunity zones Seek to accommodate large one off schemes e.g. unique attractions Encourage sustainable development Encourage hotel and accommodation investment Protect shoreline and coast line/access to coastline Transport policy and roads to allow flow and connectivity Car parking considerations Support services for tourists in visitor locations – café/bar/retail Flexible to accommodate opportunity.
3.4 Transportation
KSRs should not just relate to roads but to the provision for green transport Allow for stage requirements as the development took place More innovative approach needed for employment sites to provide access Possible re-zoning of sites which had not previously come forward Avoidance of derelict sites 20
PC.06.02.18
Developers should be making contributions but they should be staged as appropriate Locate new developments with access in mind Extend the rapid transport route Free up the commercial areas from car parking (workers park elsewhere) More Park and ride sites (explore developer contribution). A central Park and Ride (Peninsula) Sites required closer to bus and rail.
3.5 Natural Environment
Maintain green areas Connected greenspaces Climate change and future proofing. Zones for wind turbines Kinship test, consider/explore new policy Distinctiveness and character had to be preserved Consideration of cross boundary areas Protection of woodland Preservation of the Borough’s archaeological and historical towns Dereliction of properties in villages and towns; they should be demolished and rebuilt Brownfield development prioritised Expanding village settlement limits/review village boundaries No development along coastline which could attribute or be affected by erosion.
3.6 Historic Environment
Need a cultural change in terms of understanding local historic heritage and why it was important Sensitive to local need – those which had social or local importance but were not listed Possible expansion of conservation areas e.g. Greyabbey Increase availability of grant funding. Examine all towns for CA status (character evaluation) Review ATC Use of building preservation notices TPO’S in conservation areas (reactive as opposed to proactive enforcement) Low density housing approvals Permission for temporary uses
4.0 Next steps
4.1 The series of workshops would continue until March 2018 4.2 A further report would be presented to cover the issues raised in the latter part of the workshop programme
21
PC.06.02.18
4.3 It was recommended that all of the relevant planning issues raised by Members would be appropriately addressed within the Preferred Options Paper 4.2 Proposals were subject to a Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), of which assistance on that specialist area was being provided by the Shared Environmental Service
RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.
Members rose in turn to express their thanks to the Development Plan Manager and her team involved in the workshops.
Councillor Barry noted that the workshops he had attended had been extremely useful, particularly in gaining an understanding of the views of other Members. In addition to that the older Council Members had historic memories of the Borough’s towns and villages which had led to an informative debate. He noted the invaluable presence of Planning Officers at each table.
Rising in support of those comments, Councillor McIlveen stated he had begun to realise the level of work by Officers that went into the Planning process and stressed members should not underestimate the level of work that went into preparing reports for the LDP and Committee.
Councillor Smart expressed his view of the workshops which was that people had been willing to discuss issues from first principals which had been very useful. He welcomed the follow up report above detailing the points raised at the workshops.
Alderman McDowell also found the workshops useful and he queried what the next step would be going forward. He was keen to get more information on the Preferred Options Paper so that Members could continue to contribute to the process. He did not want it to be simply a tick box exercise and he sought more opportunities for Members to contribute. He asked if Members could be provided with information on workshops they had missed.
Alderman Graham found the workshops useful, however he expressed concern that as this was a one-off opportunity it was vital that they got it right. He wanted the Borough to be the best in the province. He wondered if there was scope for Officers to look at other places on the mainland and beyond, given that this was a once in a lifetime opportunity and therefore they should not hold back; Officers should be given the opportunity to bring back ideas into the Borough.
The Principal Planning and Technical Officer thanked Members for their positive comments, which she would pass on to the LDP team, and also for their engagement in the process. She noted that was not the end of the process and that it was hoped to establish governance arrangements in the near future. Engagement for Members would continue via the Planning Committee. The Head of Planning stated that the team would explore ways to make the full range of topic papers available for members online.
22
PC.06.02.18
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that the recommendation be adopted.
6.2 EMPLOYMENT LAND REVIEW - PROCUREMENT
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 January 2018 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning providing an update on the above.
1.0 Background
1.1 Members were aware of the ongoing preparation of position papers and associated capacity engagement in respect of the Local Development Plan (LDP). The purpose of the report was to update Members in respect of need for procurement of specialist services to assist in informing the LDP evidence base.
2.0 Employment Land Review (ELR)
2.1 It was crucial that the LDP was founded on a comprehensive and robust evidence base. A significant volume of research had been completed by officers to date to help inform the Preferred Options Paper (POP). That included a series of thematic papers. In addition, officers were involved in steering groups on a range of cross-cutting issues.
2.2 There was a quantum of land set aside in the extant plans which remained to be utilised and discussion had taken place at the engagement workshops regarding barriers to development, and concerns regarding safeguarding of such land for future use.
2.3 It was important to have robust supporting evidence with the most up-to-date methodologies for the assessment of need and in turn appropriate land requirements. The ELR would form an important part of the LDP evidence base and would help inform land allocations and development management policies to be included within them. That evidence would also form an up-to- date baseline to assist with further statutory reporting requirements
2.4 It was anticipated that the opportunity also existed for any appointed firm to work collaboratively in partnership with the Local Development Plan Team to build capacity and also to have officers from within the Directorate as members of the project steering group.
3.0 Funding
3.1 Funding for that exercise was allocated within the Planning Budget. Cost was Projected in the region of £30,000 - £35,000.
3.2 There were no expected additional costs in relation to that exercise for that year.
23
PC.06.02.18
3.0 Next steps
3.1 Procurement officers (from Performance and Projects Service) were currently advising on the procurement approach and a tender was anticipated to issue in the next month.
3.2 A report would be brought back to the Planning Committee to recommend award of the contract at the end of the procurement process, in line with Council policy.
RECOMMENDED that Members approve the tender of an Employment Land Review.
The Principal Planning and Technical Officer guided Members through the report and then invited questions from them.
Alderman McDowell commented that it was a vital piece of work for the Council to undertake. There was a significant amount of land on maps designated for industrial use however that may not be an accurate reflection of reality particularly given the current housing need. In light of that, it was important to do the review as unless the available land was known the Council’s economic plans could start to falter. He expressed concern about the timeline of the process given the urgency of the situation and that tender exercises could take several months. He noted that businesses were leaving the Borough because they could not get available land and also after looking at available options they had decided it was not suitable for their business. Furthermore, the Borough had been haemorrhaging jobs for the last number of years. It was essential that they had the correct information so that they could plan accordingly. He sought clarity about the timescale of the process and when a final report would be available.
In response, the Principal Planning and Technical Officer advised that it was the fundamental role of the LDP to find suitable land and immediate work was to progress with procurement services towards the issuing of a tender. It was hoped the review would be completed by the consultant within four months.
Rising in support, Councillor Smart stated that he shared many of Alderman McDowell’s views. He queried how the approach to the review differed to that taken in the past. He also asked how much weight the report would put on the feedback from local businesses. Furthermore, he sought clarity on where the remit of that sat.
In response, the Principal Planning and Technical Officer advised that the purpose of the exercise was to inform the LDP so that there was an ample supply to meet the economic development needs of the Borough. The review would take account of the baseline in respect of land and would look at future needs. Taking the Councillor’s point, she stated that how much land was wanted would be on the basis of an employment land review for the purpose of local development.
In addition to that response, the Head of Planning stated that the consultant would be tasked with ascertaining what the current issues were, including the barriers to
24
PC.06.02.18 the take-up of sites, such as physical and digital infrastructure. There would be a vast range of issues tasked to the consultant on which to produce a report.
Councillor Barry rose in support and commented that an evidence base was required as they tried to establish the extant supply and what the demand was including the type of land that was needed. He stated that they could change the wider LDP. He concurred that the Borough was haemorrhaging businesses because they could not find appropriate land; with the necessary infrastructure, roads and broadband etc. He stressed the urgency of the review and the importance of getting it right in order to ensure economic and sustainable development.
The Principal Planning and Technical Officer advised that the report would include a range of aspects including from a Planning and Policy context.
Councillor McIlveen stated that the review was needed in order to understand what the current position was, the availability of areas and the suitability of existing buildings. They had to try to look at the best possibilities and check that the ground was right to encourage business growth and meet their needs, as it was obvious that the current provision did not meet the needs of existing businesses. The review was fundamental and it was vital to get the outside expertise, as it would take years to do the same work in-house.
Alderman Graham concurred with those comments.
In summing up, Alderman McDowell reiterated that the Borough had been haemorrhaging jobs in recent years and had lost a large number of businesses and as such efforts must be made to reverse that trend. He believed the Council had to intervene in order that jobs be provided in the Borough.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman McDowell, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted.
7. CORRESPONDENCE FROM DFI REGARDING PLANNING PORTAL REPLACEMENT – STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence dated 20 December 2017 from the Department for Infrastructure in response to the comments made on behalf of Members that they would have wanted to have participated in the Discovery exercise.
The letter stated that there were a large number of people and organisations who had an interest in the proposals for a new planning IT system. As part of an overall communications strategy for that work they had, and would continue to, engage with those stakeholders in the most appropriate manner.
In terms of Discovery, that work had been undertaken over the summer to identify the functions of any new IT system and as such had required them and their consultants to engage with people who would use the new planning IT system on a
25
PC.06.02.18 daily basis. Therefore, that engagement had focused on Department and local government planning staff as well as statutory consultees and planning agents.
At the same time, they had sought to keep elected members informed about the project through written and verbal briefings to NILGA Planning and Regeneration Working Group, a workshop with Council Chief Executives as well as regular updates to SOLACE and Heads of Planning. Their assumption was that Council officials were, in turn, keeping their elected members informed.
The next phase of work was to develop a business case that would identify a preferred option for a new planning IT system. As part of that work they would be attending a NILGA meeting on 23 January 2018 specifically to discuss the new system and would continue to engage with SOLACE and Heads of Planning
RECOMMENDED that the correspondence be noted.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the recommendation be adopted.
8. PLANNING BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT – DECEMBER 2017 (FILE: FIN45)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 January 2018 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that the Planning Budgetary Control Report covered the 9-month period 1 April to 31 December 2017 and was set out below. The net cost of the service was showing an under spend of £5,759 (1.1%).
Explanation of Variance
A Budgetary Control Report by Income and Expenditure for Planning was, also, shown below which analysed the overall favourable variance (£5,759) by expenditure (£108,027 favourable) and income (£102,269 adverse).
PLANNING
Expenditure - £108.0k (7.9%) better than budget to date. The favourable variance was mainly made up of the following: - a. Payroll £124.6k favourable due to vacancies. The 2017/18 budget had included an allowance for 9 new posts but delays in recruitment had meant that the final 5 posts had only been filled in December. b. Legal fees were £39.6k over budget to date. There were a number of ongoing complex enforcement cases which had required specialist legal advice. c. There were underspends to date on hired services (£14.0k) due to a delay in commencing tree work (that was expected to be completed by the end of March 2018) and rent (£14.0k).
26
PC.06.02.18
Income - £102.2k (12.3%) worse than budget to date. The adverse variance was mainly made up of the following: - d. Planning application income was £102.1k worse than budget to date. The 2017/18 income budget had anticipated significant planning application fees in respect of the Queens Parade project. That was unlikely to occur in that financial year so income may have been around £100k behind target by the end of the year.
BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Directorate and Service
Period 9 - December 2017
Note Year to Date Year to Date Variance Annual Variance Actual Budget Budget £ £ £ £ %
Planning
330 Planning 536,041 541,800 (5,759) 777,700 1.1
Totals 536,041 541,800 (5,759) 777,700 1.1
BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Income and Expenditure
Period 9 - December 2017
Expenditure Income Note Actual Budget Variance Actual Budget Variance £ £ £
Planning
330 Planning 1,265,473 1,373,500 (108,027) (729,431) (831,700) 102,269
Totals 1,265,473 1,373,500 (108,027) (729,431) (831,700) 102,269
RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted.
9. NOTICE OF OPINION RE: LANDS AT 169 RATHGAEL ROAD/SCHOOL AVENUE, BANGOR (FILE: LA06/2016/1236/O) (Appendix VIII)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 29 January 2018 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning and attaching a Notice of Opinion from the 27
PC.06.02.18
Department for Infrastructure which had been received by the Council on 29 January 2018.
The Department of the Environment had granted planning permission under reference W/2008/0749/O on 25 May 2010 for the following:
Location: Lands at 169 Rathgael Road/School Avenue, Bangor
Proposal: Site for new residential neighbourhood, incorporating mixed dwelling units, local retailing, community building, public open space, play areas, habitat restoration, underground and surface car parking, private communal open space, pedestrian and cycle paths, access and improvements to Rathgael Road and associated site works.
As that application had been dealt with by DOE HQ at that time under Article 31 of the Planning Order 1991 as a major application, any amendments to conditions of that approval had to be dealt with by the Department for Infrastructure.
The Department had received an application to vary condition 12 of that approval, on 12 December 2016, which had restricted the occupation of no more than 25 dwellings until various road works had been completed. The proposal was to vary the condition to permit occupation of 50 dwellings prior to completion of road works.
The Department had assessed that application in conjunction with consultation with Transport NI, and had issued a Notice of Opinion to approve.
Subject to receipt of no objections or representations seeking the application be dealt with by way of hearing by the Planning Appeals Commission, the approval would be issued.
RECOMMENDED that Members approve the Notice of Opinion.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation be adopted.
TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated at 9.06pm.
28
ITEM 8.2
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 February 2018 at 7.00 pm.
PRESENT:
In the Chair: Councillor Martin
Aldermen: Fletcher Henry
Councillors: Armstrong-Cotter Edmund Boyle Ferguson Cathcart Woods Cummings Smart Douglas Wilson
Officers: Director of Environment (D Lindsay), Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment (R Brittain), Head of Waste and Cleansing Services (N Martin), Head of Assets and Property Services (P Caldwell), and Democratic Services Officer (H Loebnau)
In Attendance: Councillors Brooks, Robinson, T Smith, Thompson and Building Control Services Manager (R McCracken)
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend were received from Councillors Barry and McAlpine.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Chairman asked for any declarations of interest and Councillor Cathcart declared an interest in Item 16 – Extension of Arc21 Service Contracts.
3. ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT (FILE FIN45/40012)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 January 2018 from the Director of Environment detailing that the Environment Budgetary Control Report covered the 9 month period 1 April to 31 December 2017 and was set out. The net cost of services was showing an overspend of £408,614 (3.1%).
Explanation of Variance
In addition, a Budgetary Control Report by Income and Expenditure for the Directorate was also shown which analysed the overall adverse variance (£408,614) by expenditure (£421,730 adverse) and income (£13,115 favourable). EC.07.02.18 PM
ENVIRONMENT
Expenditure - £421.7k (2.6%) worse than budget to date. That adverse variance was mainly made up of the following: - 1. Waste and Cleansing Services - £411.4k adverse. a. A combined summary of the main waste stream variances was set out in the table below.
£’000 Commentary Landfill 461.2 4.9k tonnes more than budget Brown/Green bin (148.7) 2.7k tonnes less than budget waste Blue bin waste (100.1) 2.5k tonnes less than budget
HRC waste 61.1 Higher tonnage than budget Total 273.5
Overall, the main waste stream budgets were showing an adverse variance of £273.5k. b. Payroll costs were £42.2k favourable to date.
c. The route optimisation project was now expected to cost £158.4k across both revenue and capital this year. The project was over budget by £83.4k as set out below: Expenditure Budget Variance £’000 £’000 £’000 Revenue 50.5 - 50.5 Capital 107.9 75.0 Capital Receipts 32.9 158.4 75.0 83.4
The overspend was largely attributable to the purchase of in-cab equipment and additional software.
Part of the overspend in revenue could be met from the £30k set aside in the Earmarked Fund from the 2016/17 year-end surplus and the overspend in capital expenditure could be met from use of additional capital receipts.
2
EC.07.02.18 PM
There would, also, be an annual revenue charge for licences and support of £51.8k which would be reflected in future years’ budgets. d. Equipment repairs in the Waste Recycling Centres were £17.3k adverse to date as more repairs had been required to date than expected at the WRC’s.
e. Spend on refuse bins was £49.4k higher than budget to date. There had been high demand from householders in the legacy Ards area to change 140 litre blue bins to 240 litre blue bins. Brown bin spend was higher than budget due to high demand from householders.
f. Spend on replacement HRC skips (£19.0k) was not budgeted for in 2017/18. That would be a recurring spend so a budget had been included for 2018/19.
g. Printing costs £16.7k (recycling information) and advertising costs £10.3k (graphics on bin lorries) were adverse to date.
2. Assets and Property Services - £0.1k favourable. a. Property Operations were £39.1k over budget to date. That was mainly due to: - i. Payroll costs were £36.2k favourable mainly due to vacant posts which were in the process of being filled and tighter control of overtime. ii. Contractor costs were £96.5k over budget to date. There had been repair work carried out in areas such as Ballyhalbert Harbour, Millisle Beach Park carpark and Bangor Marina wall which were not budgeted for but needed to be done. iii. Consultancy services for Cooke Street, Jetty and Ballywalter Harbour were £15.2k under budget to date. b. Technical Services were £76.3k under budget to date. That was mainly due to: - i. Payroll costs were £38.3k favourable mainly due to vacant posts which were in the process of being filled. ii. Utility costs were £16.1k under budget to date. iii. Contractor costs were £39.2k under budget to date. That covered areas such as statutory compliance work, refurbishments, playgrounds and statutory upgrades. iv. Christmas related expenditure was currently £8.9k over budget. v. Security costs at the old Bangor Leisure Centre were £5.8k over budget to date. c. Fleet Management was £39.5k over budget to date. That was mainly due to: -
3
EC.07.02.18 PM
i. Payroll costs were £20.4k favourable mainly due to vacant posts which had now been filled. ii. Vehicle maintenance costs were £45.2k over budget to date. iii. Vehicle licensing costs and protective clothing costs were £12.5k over budget to date. 3. Building Control, Licensing & Neighbourhood Environment - £16.3k adverse. a. Payroll costs were £1.8k over budget year to date. b. Consultancy costs for the Council’s Car Parking Strategy were £15.6k adverse to date as that was not included in the 2017/18 budget.
Income - £13.1k (1.2%) better than budget to date. That favourable variance comprised:
4. Waste & Cleansing Services - £101.5k adverse. That was mainly due to trade waste income (£79.9k) and sale of glass income (£24.4k) being worse than budget to date and income from Special Collections being £8.7k better than budget to date. 5. Assets and Property Services - £22.3k favourable. Wind turbine income was £14.5k behind target to date. Income for the old Bangor Leisure Centre was £32.7k favourable due to a rates rebate received from LPS. Property Operations income was £3.6k better than budget to date. 6. Building Control & Licensing income - £92.3k favourable. That was mainly due to Building Control income (£79.5k), Property Certificate income (£11.8k) and fixed penalty fines (£18.6k) being better than budget to date offset by Car Park income (£7.8k) and Licensing income (£13.4k) being worse than budget to date.
BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Directorate and Service
Period 9 - December 2017
Note Year to Date Year to Date Variance Annual Variance Actual Budget Budget £ £ £ £ %
Environment
200 Environment HQ 107,317 113,200 (5,883) 150,700 5.2 210 Waste and Cleansing Services 9,243,771 8,730,800 512,971 11,815,300 5.9 220 Assets and Property Services 3,947,313 3,969,700 (22,387) 5,464,800 0.6 230 Building Control, Licensing & Neighbour (7,387) 68,700 (76,087) 225,400 110.8
Totals 13,291,014 12,882,400 408,614 17,656,200 3.2
4
EC.07.02.18 PM
BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Income and Expenditure
Period 9 - December 2017
Expenditure Income Note Actual Budget Variance Actual Budget Variance £ £ £
Environment
200 Environment HQ 107,317 113,200 (5,883) - - - 210 Waste and Cleansing Services 10,409,236 9,997,800 411,436 (1,165,465) (1,267,000) 101,535 220 Assets and Property Services 4,109,450 4,109,500 (50) (162,137) (139,800) (22,337) 230 Building Control, Licensing & Neighbour 1,825,726 1,809,500 16,226 (1,833,113) (1,740,800) (92,313) ------Totals 16,451,730 16,030,000 421,730 (3,160,715) (3,147,600) (13,115)
RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes this report
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cummings, seconded by Councillor Woods, that the recommendation be adopted.
4. NI LOCAL AUTHORITY MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STATISTICS (FILE 53042)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 25 January 2018 from the Director of Environment detailing that Members would be aware that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency published official waste management statistics for all Councils in Northern Ireland on a quarterly and annual basis. Those statistics were very significant for the Council as they provided a formal definitive position on our progress towards meeting various key statutory recycling and landfill diversion targets.
The latest officially published report was for the second quarter of the 2017/18 reporting year, July to September 2017. The full report could be accessed on DAERA’s web site at: https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/publications/northern-ireland-local-authority-collected- municipal-waste-management-statistics-april-june-2017
There were a number of very significant observations worthy of highlighting in respect of Ards and North Down Borough Council’s performance, compared to our performance during the same reporting period last year:
i. Our household waste recycling rate rose by a further 2.8%, from 54.5% to 56.8%. Our Quarter 2 household recycling rate was now 13.9% higher than the Quarter 2 rate in our strategy baseline year of 2015/16, compared to a NI wide rise of 6.2% over the same period.
5
EC.07.02.18 PM
ii. Our household waste recycling rate of 56.8% was 5.3% higher than the NI average of 51.5%.
iii. We moved from a ranking of 2nd place out of the 11 NI Councils for our household recycling rate.
iv. Our household waste composting rate dropped slightly by 0.9% - from 37.1% to 36.2%, but for the first time our household waste dry recycling rate rose significantly by 3.2% - from 17.2% to 20.4%.
v. Our household waste composting rate of 36.2% was 7.4% higher than the NI average of 28.8%.
vi. Our kerbside recycling capture rate of 75.6% for household compostable waste materials was far in excess of the NI Council average of 59.3%.
vii. We moved from being the highest performing council in relation to household waste composting rate, to third highest performing Council. viii. Our ‘dry’ recycling rate (i.e. recycling of items other than organic green/brown bin materials) of 20.4% was 2.2% lower than the NI average of 22.6%.
ix. We were still at the lower end of the performance table for ‘dry’ recycling rate, ranking 8th out of 11 Councils.
x. The recycling rate for waste received at our Household Recycling Centres of 63.4%, was 7.1% lower than the 70.5% average for other NI Councils.
xi. We landfilled 64% more waste through our HRCs compared to the NI average, on a per capita basis. That continued to demonstrate that significant work was still required to improve the performance of our HRCs and their impact on our overall landfill liability/recycling rate. The rigorous implementation of a new permit system to enforce access rules for vans and large trailers would be an essential aspect of HRC performance improvement programme.
xii. Our total municipal waste arisings fell by a further 6.6%, compared to an average fall across other NI Councils of 2%. Our Quarter 2 figure for total municipal waste arisings was now 9.9% lower than the Quarter 2 figure in our strategy baseline year of 2015/16, compared to a NI wide rise of 3.7%.
The latest official Municipal Waste Management Statistics report provided continuing encouragement and further firm evidence of significant sustained success in the implementation of our Sustainable Waste Management Strategy. Importantly, it also helped us to focus on issues of key significance for further recycling advancements. We were clearly still performing relatively poorly on ‘dry’ recycling, i.e. recycling of waste items that should be going into our blue bins and into relevant recycling containers at our HRCs. Continued focus on the latest phase of our strategy implementation involving relaunch of the blue bin and launch of the new kerbside
6
EC.07.02.18 PM glass collection service, would be of fundamentally key importance in addressing that deficiency in our recycling performance. Further reform of how our Household Recycling Centres were managed would also be a key strategic priority.
In relation to the latest published waste management statistics, it was particularly worthy of noting that several Councils that adopted our model of reform for food waste recycling were now reaping the rewards, with at least one other Council now achieving kerbside composting rates on a par with our own. Officers from a number of other Councils engaged with our own recycling team to develop an understanding of our approach, and key elements of our strategy were replicated in other Councils’ own campaigns. In that regard, the Council and its elected members and officers had demonstrated themselves to be ‘exemplars’ for reform of this key public service.
Progress towards the key targets set out in our Strategy was summarised and illustrated in the following charts.
7
EC.07.02.18 PM
8
EC.07.02.18 PM
RECOMMENDED that the above report be noted.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Woods, seconded by Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, that the recommendation be adopted.
5. BUILDING CONTROL ACTIVITIES NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2017 (FILE BC01/91000)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 25 January 2018 from the Director of Environment detailing that the report provided information on the principal activities of the Building Control Section in relation to the enforcement of the Building Regulations and other associated activities.
(a) Number of Applications Received
Full Plan Applications 2017-2018
100 80 60 40 20 0 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18
No of Applications Applications of No April 2017 - March 2018
9
EC.07.02.18 PM
Nov 17 Dec
Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 17 Building Notice 150 188 197 167 204 352 314 190 185 Applications Regularisation 95 85 95 57 61 61 72 61 68 Applications
(b) Fee Income
Building Control 2017-2018 - Total Monthly Income
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
Income £ Income 60,000
40,000
20,000
- Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18
April 2017 - March 2018
Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Total monthly fees £61,608 £82,894 £79,150 £98,766 £74,063 £129,397 £84,199 £72,875 £73,690 received Cumulative monthly £61,608 £144,502 £223,652 £322,418 £396,481 £525,878 £610,077 £682,952 £756,642 income to date Forecast Income to £64,200 £145,200 £222,300 £312,700 £383,700 £501,700 £567,700 £631,700 £681,300 date
(c) Department Output
Department Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Output
10
EC.07.02.18 PM
Full Plans Approvals 46 73 69 39 61 68 44 65 50 issued Full Plans Rejections 53 50 60 54 51 47 37 66 35 Notices issued Building Notices 119 132 141 92 147 112 165 172 93 certificates issued Regularisation 81 104 73 54 55 43 66 48 24 Certificates issued
(d) Inspections
May- Aug- Inspections Nov-17 Dec-17 Apr-17 17 Jun-17 Jul-17 17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Total Inspections 1073 1334 1354 904 1341 1040 1220 1232 797
(e) Dangerous Structures
Dangerous Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Structures Initial Inspections 2 2 5 2 3 2 6 0 1 Re-inspections 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 0 Recommended for 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal Action
(f) Plan Assessment Turn-around times (Financial year to date)
Domestic Plans assessed with 21 days 56% Non-Domestic Plans assessed with 35 days 52%
11
EC.07.02.18 PM
(g) Property Certificates PROPERTY CERTIFICATE INCOME 2017-2018 £25,000
£20,000
£15,000
£10,000 INCOME £ INCOME £5,000
£0 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 APRIL 2017 - MARCH 2018
Property Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Certificates Received 263 307 335 424 280 318 299 296 168 Processed 276 299 310 235 277 320 299 269 213 Building Control 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 days 0.1 days 0.1 days 0.1 days 0.1 days Average days days days days Response Time Monthly fee PC £16,375 £17,530 £19,497 £15,769 £16,163 £18,712 £18,204 £17,892 £12,072 income Monthly PC fee £18,000 £18,000 £18,000 £18,000 £18,000 £18,000 £18,000 £18,000 £18,000 forecast
RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.
Councillor Cathcart queried the Plan Assessment Turn-around times (f) and the percentages which had been quoted in the report and wondered how those sat against the target which was revealed to be 70%. The Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment agreed that the percentages were behind target but that had been due to an unusually high volume of applications and the section was working to improve that figure.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Edmund, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted.
6. RESULT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS (FILE 90202)
12
EC.07.02.18 PM
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 23 January 2018 from the Director of Environment detailing:
Mr Brian Edge – Dog Attack
At Newtownards Magistrates Court on 19th January 2018 Mr Brian Edge of 29 Ashmount Drive, Portaferry was convicted of his dog attacking a cat and killing it. Mr Edge was fined £150, ordered to pay £179 costs and expenses and a £15 offender levy.
RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.
Councillor Cummings was pleased to hear about the successful prosecution and he wondered if Council could place a ban on someone from keeping a dog in situations where a prosecution had taken place. The Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment said that the Council had no power do do that, but that ‘control conditions’ could be placed on an owner to limit the chances of repeat offences.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cummings, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the recommendation be adopted.
7. NOTICE OF MOTION REPORT ON COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INTRODUCING A LOCALISED CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION SCHEME (FILE 69001) (Appendix I & II)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 24 January 2018 from the Director of Environment detailing that in November 2017 Council agreed a Notice of Motion by Councillors Woods and Barry as followed:
‘That this Council writes to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs asking for the complete information and evidence base upon which former Minister McIlveen based her decision to cancel the container deposit legislation scheme (CDL) as proposed by Minister Durkan. And to commission immediately, a study, and public consultation, on the introduction of effective packaging waste in NI, expressly including a CDL scheme as the default alternative in the absence of more effective and cost effective methods of delivering the recycling increases and litter reductions available through a CDL scheme. Secondly, this Council brings back a report on the costs associated with introducing a localised CDL scheme within the Borough in order to reduce the number of single use plastic bottles that were being thrown into general refuse’.
A letter was sent to the Permanent Secretary at DAERA as agreed and a response had now been received and was attached. Members may be aware that some additional momentum had been generated recently in relation to the potential for a
13
EC.07.02.18 PM container deposit scheme, with the UK Environment Secretary announcing plans to look at scope for such a scheme in England.
Officers had considered the potential for a localised scheme to be introduced in the Ards and North Down Borough, as suggested in the Notice of Motion. However, a container deposit scheme for plastic bottles was a very significant initiative which would need to be established on a legislative basis and involving a major stakeholder engagement process. Furthermore, the issue was ‘trans-boundary’, in that it was not something that could be effectively implemented within the limits of the Ards and North Down Borough alone; at the very least, an effective scheme would need to be agreed on a policy/legislative basis for the whole of the devolved region of Northern Ireland. As things stood, the Council would not have the legislative mandate to establish or enforce a container deposit scheme and there was unlikely to be buy-in from the multiplicity of producers/suppliers whose operations would extend at the very least to other parts of Northern Ireland and indeed further afield - where no such scheme existed.
Notwithstanding the response received from the Permanent Secretary of DAERA, where a situation potentially existed that container deposit schemes were introduced in all of the other regions of the UK (including England), that was likely to generate a greater argument for such a scheme in NI. It was proposed that Council could monitor the situation, particularly the progress of the initiative in England, and potentially lobby for re-consideration of the issue here in due course.
RECOMMENDED that Council notes the report and that the matter be further reviewed in due course following assessment of progress in relation to container deposit scheme proposals for the rest of the UK.
Councillor Edmund noted the Department’s response and agreed that it would be wisest to spread any such introduction on a UK wide basis rather than simply in Northern Ireland alone and he was encouraged that the matter appeared to be moving in that direction.
Councillor Woods asked to propose an amendment to the recommendation on the officers report on introducing a localised container deposit legislation scheme as follows;
‘It is recommended that Council notes the report and that the matter be further reviewed in due course following assessment of progress in relation to container deposit scheme proposals for the rest of the UK, and lobbies in favour of legislation and such a scheme to be implemented should the occasion arise.’
Councillor Cathcart was happy to support the amendment and thought that that was the position of the Environment Committee as a whole. He would support a UK wide introduction and when that came forward it was likely to have cross party support.
Councillor Wilson agreed with Councillor Cathcart’s comments and noted that Scotland had already committed and he was also happy to support the amendment.
14
EC.07.02.18 PM
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Edmund, seconded by Councillor Woods, that the amended recommendation be adopted.
8. NOTICE OF MOTION REPORT ON KERBSIDE GLASS RECYCLING SERVICE (FILE 68018)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 16 January 2018 detailing that in January 2018 Council agreed to a Notice of Motion tabled by Councillor Robinson as followed:
“As a consequence of a fairly disappointing response to date towards council’s kerbside glass recycling scheme, officers bring back a report on the feasibility of increasing glass collections from monthly to fortnightly, in line with our current grey bin collections.
A number of factors may be contributing to the lack of enthusiasm for the scheme, not least confusion over schedules, plus the limited capacity of the boxes provided, so opting for fortnightly glass collections may improve the response.”
Members may recall that the new kerbside recycling collection service for glass bottles and jars commenced in June 2017, and so had been operating now for a relatively short period of 7 months. That was a completely new service for householders, developed as part of a suite of service transformation initiatives under the auspices of our Sustainable Waste Resource Management Strategy. Previously, the only means for householders to recycle glass bottles and jars was to transport them to one of a number of bottle banks located around the Borough - but evidence suggested that whilst those banks were being well used by a minority of our more diligent recycling constituents, the majority of glass bottles and jars was still being discarded in grey bins.
1. Rationale for Current Service Design
Estimates from waste management data sources, suggested that there was potentially up to 3,500 tonnes of glass available in kerbside collected household waste annually in the Ards and North Down Borough. That was significant, representing an important stream of waste material that we would want to be capturing for recycling. Furthermore, we knew from intelligence gathered following the launch of our Sustainable Waste Resource Management Strategy, that kerbside collection of glass bottles and jars featured heavily on the ‘wish list’ of local residents for enhanced recycling services. Balanced against that was the need to weigh up the cost of implementing such a service enhancement, in terms of vehicles and manpower.
There were several key factors taken into account in developing the format of the currently configured kerbside glass recycling service, which involved 4 weekly emptying of a 40 litre glass collection box from each home. Those were interrelated and sought to balance issues of practicability, cost and benefit.
15
EC.07.02.18 PM
Contractual: Our current contract for the collection of co-mingled dry recyclable materials that was let through Arc21, did not allow for inclusion of glass bottles and jars in the mix of materials that householders placed into their blue bins. In order to facilitate the kerbside recycling of glass bottles and jars it was therefore deemed necessary to provide a separate collection container to householders. Collection logistics: The standard refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) in our existing fleet that were used to collect waste and recyclables materials from wheeled bins, were unsuitable for the accommodation of ‘twin stream’ collections, i.e. it would not have been possible to simultaneously collect wheeled bin material as well as glass from a separate container, on a ‘one- pass’ basis during each fortnightly collection round. Whilst it might have been possible to phase in the replacement of old RCVs with dual compartment vehicles that would have allowed a glass container to be emptied every fortnight along with one of the coloured wheeled bins, it was likely to have taken a number of years before there were enough such new styled vehicles in the fleet to roll out the kerbside glass recycling service across the Borough. Furthermore, the extra time required for RCV crews to service both a wheeled bin and a glass container on each collection cycle was likely to have involved significant reconfiguration of routes with an associated increase in the number of routes/vehicles/manpower; the 2 compartment RCVs referred to were significantly more expensive than standard single compartment RCVs and their use for separated glass may also have led to enhanced vehicle maintenance burden/cost. It was therefore considered that the separate kerbside collection of glass would be best accommodated by deploying an additional small fleet of dedicated glass collection vehicles. Recycling yield: The overall estimate of around 3,500 tonnes of glass bottles and jars available from kerbside collected household waste across the Borough, equated to and approximate average of 5.4 kg of such recyclable material per 4 weeks, per home. It was calculated that such a 4 weekly average yield could be accommodated in a 40 litre collection box and since the glass was inert and raised no issue of decomposition during storage at home, it lent itself well to a 4 weekly collection interval. Opting for a 4 weekly collection interval maximised utilisation of space in the collection vehicles and effectively halved the number of vehicles/crews that were necessary to provide the service to all the 67,000 homes of the Borough. Furthermore, minimising the number of additional vehicles placed onto the road in that way, reduced the carbon footprint of the new glass recycling collection service.
Taking all of the above key considerations into account, the current service model was considered by officers to be the optimum model for introduction of the new kerbside glass recycling service. 100% funding to the value of £268K, was secured from DAERA’s Rethink Waste Fund for the purchase of 5 new glass collection vehicles (4 plus a spare), thereby limiting the implementation cost of the new service to ratepayers. We also received 100% grant funding to the value of £160K for the purchase of the glass collection boxes.
2. Service Performance Update
16
EC.07.02.18 PM
With the introduction of any completely new service there would inevitably be a bedding in period before service uptake/utilisation was maximised. In particular, as the new service was focussed upon the recycling behaviour change agenda, which was not by any means universally accepted or embraced, it was arguably necessary to expect an even more prolonged period before the level of engagement was optimised. The chart below illustrated that each successive 4 weekly collection cycle since introduction of the new service, had seen a sustained rise in recycling yield. That clearly demonstrated that we were still in the ‘optimisation’ phase of establishing the service.
250
200
150 Glass_Bin
100 4 Weekly Total 50
0
09 Jul09 Jul23
08 Jan08 Jan22
11 Jun11 Jun25
01 Oct01 Oct15 Oct29
02 Apr02 Apr16 Apr30
05 Feb05 Feb19 Sep03 Sep17
10 Dec10 Dec24
06 Aug06 Aug20
12 Nov12 Nov26
05 Mar05 Mar19 28 May28 14 May14
It could be noted that the last reported 4 weekly tonnage of glass bottles and jars of 196 tonnes, was almost twice that of the first 4 weekly yield back in June/July. Even if the rise in 4 weekly recycling yield was to plateau at this figure and there was no further sustained rise, that would equate to an annual yield of approximately 2,500 tonnes – which is over 70% of the estimated available yield of glass in kerbside collected household waste. During the same period, glass recycling yield through our existing network of bottle banks had largely been maintained at pre-kerbside collection service levels (with just a 6% drop in bring bank tonnage since June 2017). Therefore, in essence the yield of glass collected for recycling at the kerbside was extra material that was previously being disposed of in grey bins, and was not diverted bottle bank glass.
The fact that the newly introduced glass recycling collection service was 4 weekly (compared to the fortnightly frequency of other bin collection services), had undoubtedly created additional challenges in terms of communication and promoting familiarisation and acceptance of the new service. However, that was not of itself considered by officers to be an insurmountable barrier to optimising kerbside glass recycling yield in the medium to longer term.
3. Potential for Switch to Fortnightly Collection Service
17
EC.07.02.18 PM
As referred to in section 1 of the report, the 4 weekly collection cycle was implemented in the context of the need to balance the costs and benefits of a new kerbside glass recycling service. Whilst logistically, the frequency of collection could be enhanced to fortnightly for every home, the cost of that would be significant. Procurement of an additional 4 glass collection vehicles would be required at a capital cost of £215,000 (further grant funding would not be available) with annual running costs of £65,000 (fuel and service support). Furthermore, there would be additional manpower resources cost of £230,000, giving a total additional annual revenue cost to move to a fortnightly collection service of £295,000. That must be balanced against a potential additional benefit of an extra 1,000 tonnes yield of glass – which assumed firstly that the existing 4 weekly service yield remained optimised at its most recent performance level and did not improve further, and secondly that a new two weekly service would in practice result in the estimated maximum yield of glass bottles and jars from kerbside collected household waste (i.e. a total of approximately 3,500 tonnes). The additional cost saving associated with such an additional recycling yield of 1000 tonnes of glass would be in the region of £100k. Therefore, the financial recycling saving (which was an estimated maximum additional saving based on the assumptions outlined) would be significantly outweighed by the financial cost of the enhancement from a 4 weekly to a fortnightly service. There would be an enhanced environmental saving of a potential extra 1000 tonnes of glass recycled annually, but that additional environmental gain would be offset to a degree by the additional carbon footprint of the extra collection vehicles that would be required to deliver the enhanced service standard.
4. Potential for Further Optimisation of Outcomes from Fortnightly Collection Service
Officers were proactively monitoring and reviewing the new kerbside glass recycling service and assessing opportunities for further optimised recycling yield outcomes. The following marketing and promotional initiatives were planned by officers in this context:
Proactively targeting houses where the glass collection crews noted that a glass recycling box is not being left out for collection, highlighting: o Availability of the new service; o The fact that glass bottles and jars could not be discarded in the grey bin; and o The address specific glass collection timetable. Targeted promotion of the Bin-ovation recycling app which could be used to find address specific glass box collection dates and to receive reminder texts about glass box collection days (along with other recycling bin collection dates). Promoting the availability of an additional collection box for any householder who consistently had too much glass for one box. Further general marketing and promotion of the new kerbside glass recycling collection service as part of the overall recycling communications campaign, including focus upon the service during our targeted campaigns with schools, community and residents’ groups
18
EC.07.02.18 PM
RECOMMENDED that officers did not implement any change to the new kerbside glass recycling collection service at this stage, but rather:
1. Proceed with implementation of the further marketing and promotional initiatives detailed in the report; 2. Monitor progress of engagement with the service by householders; 3. Report on kerbside glass recycling yield as part of the quarterly report to Council on the NI Local Authority Municipal Waste Management Statistics; and 4. Bring forward any further measures deemed necessary in regard to the configuration of the new kerbside glass recycling service, depending on ongoing progress.
Alderman Fletcher was encouraged by some of the excellent news in the report and the increase in kerbside recycling. That was something to be proud of and Council should be informing citizens of their contribution.
Councillor Edmund thanked the officers for Council’s contribution and the results showed that it had been worth doing. He wondered would it be possible to increase the number of caddies per household if that was required. The Head of Waste and Cleansing Services replied that residents could now request an additional caddy where they found that they consistently had too much glass for one caddy. Further information would be placed in the Spring edition of the Borough Magazine.
Alderman Henry enquired if there was a way of detecting any glass present in grey bins. Officers confirmed that where glass was discovered in a grey bin a sticker would be placed on the bin providing information on correct glass disposal in the same way as it would be for food waste found within the bin. Ultimately if glass bottles and jars were persistently detected in a grey bin, that bin would not be emptied until the problem was remedied.
The Chairman recognised that changes to waste collection in recent years had required a cultural change of thought for residents and that sometimes took a while to bed in before it became natural behaviour. He praised the Bin Ovation App which was a good source of information.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND on the proposal of Alderman Fletcher, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the recommendation be adopted.
9. NOTICE OF MOTION ON DOG EXERCISE AREA (FILE 92000)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 January 2018 from the Director of Environment detailing that at the meeting of the Environment Committee in October 2017 the following Notice of Motion was agreed.
19
EC.07.02.18 PM
“To continue on the success achieved with the dog park created at Londonderry Park, Newtownards, officers now investigate any opportunity to provide a similar dog park in Bangor, where there is considerable demand for such a facility”
The following report had been developed in response to the Notice of Motion.
As part of the redevelopment of Londonderry Park it was deemed timely and appropriate to carry out a review of how it could be safely shared by dog walkers and other users. As a result, in January 2016 following an extensive consultation exercise, the Council agreed to introduce the following Dog Control Orders, namely;
The Dogs Exclusion (Londonderry Park, children’s play area and sports pitches etc.) Order 2015 The Dogs on Leads (Londonderry Park, path networks and car parks etc) Order 2015, and The Dogs on Leads by Direction (Londonderry Park) Order 2015.
In essence those Orders meant that dogs were excluded from the children’s play park and sports pitches and had to be on a lead in some other areas such as the car park and family recreational area, while dogs could be off lead in the remaining areas. The Orders also allowed seasonal adjustments to the areas where dogs had to be on a lead.
As part of the consultation exercise dog walkers who used the park raised concerns that the restrictions being put in place limited the space where dogs could be exercised off lead and that the redevelopment did not cater for their needs. Those concerns were taken on board and as part of the development and refurbishment of the park an enclosed dog exercise area was created. The provision of that facility had been well received as it provided a dog owner with an area where their dog could run freely but in a secure setting, facilitates relaxed social contact with other dog walkers and provided some confidence that their dog was unlikely to come into contact with another park user who may not welcome the attention of their dog.
Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the overall plan to manage dogs at Londonderry Park had worked reasonably well and the majority of park users accepted the rules that had been introduced.
In discussing the Notice of Motion with officers from the Community, Wellbeing and Health Department it was noted that at present similar restrictions (i.e. dog on a lead or excluded) that were introduced into Londonderry Park only applied to a few other parks or similar facilities in the Borough, see list below.
Dogs on Lead Ballyholme Promenade Bangor Seafront Promenade and Pier Bangor Seafront Gardens Bangor Sportsplex Marine Gardens, Bangor
20
EC.07.02.18 PM
Pickie Fun Park Seapark Recreational Grounds Walled Gardens, Castle Park Ward Park Wetlands Park Balloo Balholme Beach 1st June to 31st August Groomsport Beach 1st June to 31st August Dogs Excluded All Playgrounds
Generally, dogs could and were regularly exercised off lead without restriction in all remaining parks, recreational grounds and open spaces.
It was noted that consideration may be given to carry out a review of how such facilities across the Borough were used and shared, particularly between dog walkers and other users, in the future. Dog fouling on sports pitches and the presence of uncontrolled dogs continued to be a concern in such areas and a similar approach, which was developed for Londonderry Park, could be adopted as an effective method of addressing those concerns also. Consideration would however need to be given to the resource implications particularly around the introduction of a Borough wide approach and consultation required, as well as the regulatory duties that would be required to ensure compliance with any rules introduced. If such a holistic approach was taken, then it was anticipated that there would be a need to ensure that dog walkers who were significant users of our parks and a key stakeholder were accommodated through the possible provision of dog exercise areas.
Again in discussion with officers from the Community, Wellbeing and Health Department it was noted that plans were being considered for Ward Park, Bangor and, like Londonderry Park, that provided a timely opportunity to consider the future arrangements around the use of the park by dog walkers. The officers involved in planning the redevelopment had undertaken to consider the introduction of a dog exercise area into the park and included the concept in the wider public consultation exercise that would be carried out as plans and concepts were developed.
In the shorter term an area at Kingsland, Bangor beside the pitch and putt course, had been identified as a potential site for a dog exercise area. The site would have a number of benefits in that it was in close proximity to a popular dog walking route, car parking facilities were located nearby and some infrastructure already existed; one side of the site was already fenced.
21
EC.07.02.18 PM
RECOMMENDED that in view of the above the following was recommended
1. That officers involved in the development plans for Ward Park, Bangor include the provision of a dog exercise area in the concepts being considered and subsequently consult on them. 2. That officers conduct a review of how best to ensure dog walkers and other users could share parks, council owned open spaces and sports facilities
22
EC.07.02.18 PM
across the Borough and produce a further report on the possible way forward and resource implications involved. 3. That officers further develop a plan to make part of Kingsland, Bangor into a dog exercise area and bring back a report to the relevant Committee.
Councillor Cathcart welcomed the report and the implementation of the plans would not be overly expensive but could be enjoyed by many. The Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment agreed that the infrastructure was minimal and if changes were introduced by the Masterplan they could be moved easily.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Woods, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the recommendation be adopted.
10. NOTICE OF MOTION REPORT OFF STREET PARKING – TALBOT STREET, NEWTOWNARDS (FILE 90303) (Appendix III)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 23 January 2018 by the Director of Environment detailing that at the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee on 12th September 2017 the following Notice of Motion was agreed.
“That officers investigate the feasibility of providing a safe pedestrian walking area within Talbot Street Car Park leading to access to Londonderry Primary School to the green space where pedestrians cut through to Glenbrook Road”.
The following report had been developed in response to the Notice of Motion.
Although it was noted that the “cut through” to Glenbrook Road referred to in the Notice of Motion was an unofficial route (see photograph 1 below) and from the car park it crossed land not owned nor controlled by the Council, there was evidence that the route was used.
Photograph 1 – “cut through” from car park towards Glenbrook Road
23
EC.07.02.18 PM
It was noted that Talbot Street car park was generally relatively under used, but officers would confirm that at drop off and pick up time for children attending Londonderry Primary School the car park could get congested and drivers did have to manoeuvre their vehicle to get parked, increasing the risk of an accident. The provision of a marked walkway as shown on the appendix, at an estimated cost of £500, could to some degree reduce that risk by separating children entering the school from manoeuvring vehicles. It also noted that since the notice of motion was agreed some remedial work had been carried out to the car park including the cutting back of overgrowing vegetation and provision of a boundary fence which had improved the overall look of the car park, accessibility to it and general visibility, see photos below.
Photograph 2- General view of Talbot Street Car Park
24
EC.07.02.18 PM
Photograph 3 – General view of Talbot Street Car Park
RECOMMENDED that the painted walkway be provided at Talbot Street off street car park.
Councillor Armstrong-Cotter was in agreement with the committee by thanking officers for their hard work and the common sense action which had been taken. The sum of £500 which had been spent could potentially mean a lot if it protected the safety of children and other pedestrians.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the recommendation be adopted.
11. PROPOSED STREET NAMING (FILE FP/2017/0961/MAST/FP/2017/1488/MAST/91200)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- report dated 26 January 2018 from the Director of Environment detailing:
Faulkner Road, Bangor
A large development comprising of 58 dwellings was currently under construction on lands at Faulkner Road, Bangor. The developer had requested the street names Faulkner Grange and Faulkner Heights. The development was accessed off the existing Faulkner Road and was also in keeping with the general neighbourhood.
Bloomfield, Bangor
25
EC.07.02.18 PM
A large development comprising of 56 dwellings was currently under construction on lands at Bloomfield Road, Bangor and the developer had requested the street names Bloomfield Avenue and Bloomfield Green. The development was accessed off the existing Bloomfield Road and was also in keeping with the general neighbourhood.
RECOMMENDED that the street names Faulkner Grange, Faulkner Heights, Bloomfield Avenue and Bloomfield Green be adopted.
Further recommended that Council accepts the general names and delegates acceptance of suffixes to the Building Control department.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Wilson, seconded by Alderman Henry, that the recommendation be adopted.
12. BANGOR SEAFRONT MINOR WORKS (FILE 65141) (Appendix IV)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 25 January 2018 from the Director of Environment detailing that Members would recall a report in October 2017 in which officers highlighted some potential works around Bangor Seafront - namely the relocation of “pastie supper man”, the formation of a new path to the rear of Bregenz house and the transformation of the central fountain into a picnic area. At that time a number of Members requested that a report come back with options around how the work could be accommodated at an earlier date than the next scheduled works programmed for the area (2019).
Whilst budgets remained stretched across the Environment Directorate, colleagues in Parks had suggested that some of the work could be carried out along with other minor works in the area, within their existing budgets.
The Parks and Cemeteries Manager had indicated that the new path and fountain works could be facilitated by his contractor, leaving only the relatively inexpensive relocation of the sculpture; to be funded from within Assets and Property budgets.
26
EC.07.02.18 PM
Image 1- The central fountain
Image 2- Pastie Supper Man
27
EC.07.02.18 PM
Image 3- Extended Seafront Walking Route
RECOMMENDED that the above works are split between Assets & Property and Leisure and Amenities budgets, and completed before the end of the current financial year.
Councillor Cathcart thanked officers for working hard to find budgets to take the improvements forward especially in relation to a new path at Bregenz House. He was delighted that there would be a continuous link from Pickie through to the Long Hole and then on to Ballyholme.
Councillor Cathcart went on to ask for a minor amendment to the recommendation regarding the “Pastie Supper Man” and urged caution on its relocation.
He proposed “that Council proceed with the recommendation however the relocation of the ‘pastie supper man’ to be discussed at the Bangor Town Centre Steering Group before being brought back to the Environment Committee.”
Alderman Henry seconded that proposal and was happy that the Bangor Town Steering Group look at that as soon as possible.
Councillor Boyle queried the reasoning for that and questioned if there was a reason that the “pastie supper man” should not be at the sea front. He thought that members should accept the recommendation without nit picking through it.
28
EC.07.02.18 PM
The Head of Assets and Property Services saw no problem with the matter being discussed with the Bangor Town Steering Group. Following a question from Councillor Douglas it was noted that there had been no consultation with the Steering Group to date.
Councillor Edmund agreed that the matter be discussed at the Bangor Town Steering Group by the people who had the greatest interest in Bangor town centre before the matter was brought back to Council.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cathcart, seconded by Alderman Henry, that the amended recommendation be adopted.
13. CONSULTATION ON PROMOTING HUMAN ORGAN DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence dated 11 December 2017 from the Department of Health seeking Council’s views on a draft policy guidance statement and consultation on promoting human organ donation and transplantation in Northern Ireland.
RECOMMENDED that the information be noted.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Woods, seconded by Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, that the recommendation be adopted.
14. NOTICES OF MOTION
14.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Thompson
That this Council, following a Consultation with the Session Members of the Millisle and Ballycopeland Presbyterian Church and the Millisle Steering Group, bring back a report with costs regarding the location and installation of a Memorial Seat and small Garden, in memory of the Missionary, Amy Carmichael.
Proposed by Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Edmund.
Councillor Thompson referred to the past few days in our country when women had celebrated the 100th Anniversary of receiving a vote. He set that alongside the remarkable achievements of Amy Carmichael who had been born in Millisle and had spent the early years of her life in the town.
He described Amy’s missionary work which had taken her firstly to Belfast to be with the young women who worked in the mills located around the Shankhill Road and then to Manchester, Japan and then finally to Dohnavur, India where she spent the final 55 years of her life. Amy’s work was remarkable in that she rescued thousands of children who worked in the local temples and who were being exploited for use in
29
EC.07.02.18 PM prostitution. Amy Carmichael was also a prolific writer of Christian literature and was an inspiration to many people around the world.
Councillor Thompson said that he had been approached by people in Millisle who wished to have a fitting tribute for Amy’s life. It was hoped that that could help to promote local tourism and the church was happy to maintain the area.
Councillor Edmund also rose in support and added that in 1912 Amy’s work was recognised by Queen Mary who funded the hospital mission in Dohnavur which was still in existence today. He was aware that Amy had been bed bound in the later years of her life but despite that she continued to write 16 books. When she died she was buried in India with no headstone – only a bird bath with the words in the local language translated as “Mother Amy” on her grave. He was proud to support this important lady in the history of Northern Ireland. In Belfast her legacy also remained on the Shankill Road.
Councillor Cathcart was also happy to support the Notice of Motion. He noted that the people of Millisle had a passion for Amy and a desire that she be remembered properly in her birth town.
Councillor Armstrong-Cotter referred back to the days when she had attended a Campaigners group and had worked for a badge studying Amy Carmichael. Amy had been a great woman who had had a deep love for God and others working in difficult situations. A garden would be very fitting for people to go to pray or to spend time in peace and reflection.
Alderman Fletcher supported the Motion and Amy’s testimony at home and abroad. He suggested applying for a Blue Plaque from the Ulster History Circle for the house where Amy had lived.
Councillor Smart also rose in support and thanked the Member for bringing the Motion forward. He added that Amy had been an inspirational daughter of the Borough and a defender of workers’ rights.
Councillor Wilson queried Council’s policy on memorial benches generally if members of the public requested them. While there were conditions attached to those it was noted that that same policy would not apply to the situation under the present discussion.
Councillor Cummings thought it a tremendous idea to commemorate the work of a local woman who had had a global vision. He believed that there was a blue plaque in Belfast remembering Amy and the Pastor at the church near the Shankhill Road in Belfast had a wealth of information about Amy and her life.
The Chairman agreed that what had been proposed was a wonderful idea. The local session of the church would undertake on the maintenance of the garden. He praised Councillor Thompson for bringing the Notice of Motion forward.
30
EC.07.02.18 PM
In conclusion Councillor Thompson said he was very pleased with the response. He, like other Members, undertook to do his best for his constituents and he knew that this decision would be popular.
AGREED that the Notice of Motion be adopted.
14.2 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillors Barry, Robinson and Woods
That this Council, in the interests of the environment, community and reducing waste, brings back a report on how best it would designate and promote itself as ‘Refill Ards and North Down’ and actively encourages local businesses in the area to sign up to the Refill Scheme and allow the public to fill up their reusable water bottles on their premises.
Proposed by Councillor Woods, seconded by Councillor Ferguson.
Councillor Woods began by briefly outlining the scheme which had originated in Bristol in 2015 to encourage a network of refill water points and that had grown to around 200 water refill points currently across the city centre.
The group had secured funding to expand the initiative across the United Kingdom through a free app and Members may be aware that it had received increased press and media interest in the last few weeks as it was to be rolled out as a national scheme in England. Some recognisable brands such as Costa Coffee and Premier Inn hotels had signed up to be part of the scheme.
Presently there were only a few places named on the app for Northern Ireland. Councillor Woods explained that she would like to see that expanded with a view to helping to encourage people to refill their bottles rather than throw them away. Ards and North Down Borough Council could be a leader in promoting that activity.
She reminded Members that one million plastic bottles were bought worldwide every minute and annual consumption was expected to surpass half a trillion by 2021. A scheme such as ‘Refill Ards and North Down’ helped promote the reuse of single use plastics as well as the use of reusable cups and containers for water as opposed to continuing to throw away bottles after a single use. The scheme would prove to be cheaper for the consumer and offer an effective solution to people who needed a drink when on the move.
The basic premise of the refill scheme was that participating bars, cafes, restaurants, banks, galleries, shops, museums and other businesses would put a sticker in their window which would alert people that they were welcome to come in with their water bottle and fill it up for free. There was also an app that people could download and businesses or organisations could sign up to which used a map system showing users where they were welcome to go.
She remarked that she did not feel it necessary to re-outline the serious issues that humanity and the wider ecosystem faced in terms of plastics and their contamination
31
EC.07.02.18 PM of the Borough, rivers, seas and waterways, nor the sheer amount of plastic bottles that were thrown away and recycled. She referred to discussions which had taken place earlier in the meeting about the issues that the Council still faced in terms of dry recycling statistics and how far we had to go in terms of our recycling targets. Recycling was only one part of a whole picture that Council needed to address. The reduction and reuse of resources also had a part to play and a radical rethink of how they used plastic in their daily lives was also called for.
According to the Marine Litter Survey 2016, plastic drinks containers alone accounted for 8% of total litter found on beaches Northern Ireland between 2012 and 2016 and 14.45 items per 100m in the three beaches in the Ards and North Down area which were surveyed. Councillor Woods believed that a scheme such as she had outlined could be a first step in addressing that problem.
She believed that being a Refill Borough would also help to encourage more frequent use of local businesses and shops and could help boost trade going forward. Whilst a shop or business could give out free tap water, people visiting would also have the opportunity to make a purchase. Having refill stations could also help with providing people in the Borough access to water which was an important part of maintaining a healthy lifestyle and diet. It was also an opportunity for those visiting the Borough to know where they could fill up their bottle, if they were taking a long walk or cycling into new areas. For those reasons she asked for the support of Members to promote the initiative.
Councillor Cathcart was happy to support and remarked that over the past couple of months three Notices of Motion relating to plastic litter had been discussed. He agreed that Council should do all it could to tackle the problem. He imagined top up points in visitor areas such as at beaches and had a slight concern about potential risks of infection and the cost element around that, however in principle he believed it was a very good Notice of Motion.
Councillor Boyle also supported the Notice of Motion although he referred to the fact that he sold water on his business premises and did not wish to simply give it away. Referring to Councillor Cathcart’s concerns he believed that water would be topped up in business premises only and not by public water taps.
Councillor Smart also rose in support and he insisted that the public was waking up to the fact that the use of plastic had been abused for too long and so alternatives to promote a different culture in that respect should be welcomed.
Councillor Douglas felt that it was important that Council showed leadership in this very worthy initiative and help to take it forward within the Borough.
Councillor Woods thanked Members of the committee of their support and addressing the risk of contamination explained that the scheme was for indoor premises only such as cafés, restaurants and pubs and so infection was not a consideration.
AGREED that the Notice of Motion be adopted.
32
EC.07.02.18 PM
14.3 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor T Smith and Councillor Brooks
Since the public realm in Donaghadee was handed over to the Council it has become clear that the current street cleansing regime is not sufficient to maintain the footpaths to an acceptable standard.
Therefore, given these problems it is requested that a report be brought to Council on the potential for carrying out a deep clean in the area which would include power hosing the streets along with a subsequent programme of appropriate ongoing washing to ensure a high level of cleanliness is maintained.
Councillor T Smith outlined his Notice of Motion which he felt was straightforward. The public realm scheme in Donaghadee had been in place now for several years. Since its introduction he had been contacted on numerous occasions about the state and cleanliness of the pavements which were not considered to be up to standard with ingrained dirt. Reference was made to the special sealant which had been placed on the stone which was known to make decisions on cleaning methods difficult. The current methods of cleaning were not bringing the stone back to the original standard.
Councillor Douglas proposed an amendment to the original Notice of Motion which she felt would be more inclusive including all the public realm towns. Her Notice of Motion was outlined below.
“Since the public realm in our five towns of: Bangor, Comber, Donaghadee, Holywood and Newtownards was handed over to the Council it had become clear that the current street cleansing regime is not sufficient to maintain the footpaths to an acceptable standard.
Therefore, given those problems it was requested that a report be brought to Council on the potential for carrying out a deep clean in the area which would include power hosing the streets along with a subsequent programme of appropriate ongoing washing to ensure a high level of cleanliness is maintained.”
Councillor Wilson supported the amendment and shared the frustration of the difficulties which had been described. It was important to balance what was acceptable cleaning with the high costs involved.
The Chairman thought it would be an extensive piece of work to report on the difficulties faced by each of the five towns and the cleaning of them would require a fairly substantial amount which may need to be budgeted for in the Rates programme.
However Councillor Smart still believed that it would be useful to receive a report. Citizens wished for the streets to be kept to a high standard and there were clearly some problems. He thought that perhaps the situation did not seem so bad in Newtownards and that may be due to the darker stone used in that town. He was happy to support both of the Notices of Motion. 33
EC.07.02.18 PM
Councillor Cummings was of the same opinion and Members had highlighted an extensive problem. It may be the case that the streets of Donaghadee were worse than in the other towns but it would be good to review each one to make an assessment.
Councillor Brooks said he was stunned at the discussion and felt that it beggared belief that the conversation was even taking that direction. When the pavements were laid it was promised that they would be maintained by cleaning at the beginning and end of summer with a great new machine. Meanwhile however the streets had got dirtier until presently pavements in Donaghadee were a disgrace and in a state that could not be defended.
Councillor Edmund reported that he had visited Donaghadee earlier in the day and had viewed chewing gum on the paving and general untidiness. It appeared that there was no recourse to Council on the matter of the sealant which coated the stone, but appeared not to be assisting with adequate cleaning. The standard was not acceptable particularly in consideration to the original cost of the schemes.
Alderman Henry was aware that the problem appeared to be exaggerated in Donaghadee and suggested that while the other towns could be examined Donagadee should be the priority. He agreed that maintenance of the streets was the Council’s responsibility.
The Chairman asked Councillor T Smith if he would be in agreement to taking the five towns together and he said that he had no problem with that but felt that Donaghadee should be treated as a matter of urgency. A deep clean had always been intended for the town and calling for a large report could delay work for months.
The Chairman stressed that the discussion was not to blame officers who were doing as well as possible, but it was a more complicated issue. Councillor Armstrong-Cotter suggested that Donaghadee be prioritised but that the four other towns also be examined.
Councillor Douglas was not content to delay the review of the other four towns however and she said that some of the streets in Bangor were also unacceptable. A cleaning schedule was needed that was fit for purpose for all five towns.
The Chairman reminded Members that this would be a considerable piece of work and the amendment was put to a vote.
7 voted FOR the amendment 5 voted AGAINST the amendment The Amendment became the substantive motion and was CARRIED.
AGREED that the amended Notice of Motion below be adopted.
34
EC.07.02.18 PM
Since the public realm in our five towns of: Bangor, Comber, Donaghadee, Holywood and Newtownards was handed over to the Council it had become clear that the current street cleansing regime is not sufficient to maintain the footpaths to an acceptable standard.
Therefore, given those problems it was requested that a report be brought to Council on the potential for carrying out a deep clean in the area which would include power hosing the streets along with a subsequent programme of appropriate ongoing washing to ensure a high level of cleanliness is maintained.
15. LIVE HERE LOVE HERE COMMUNITY AWARDS, TUESDAY 20TH FEBRUARY 2018
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence from Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful inviting Council to attend the Live Here Love Here Community Awards at the Belfast Harbour Commissioners Office, Corporation Square, Belfast.
RECOMMENDED that the information be noted.
The Mayor, Councillor Adair and the Head of Building Control Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment would be attending with other community representatives from the Borough who would be receiving awards. Councillor Armstrong-Cotter proposed that the Chairman of the Environment Committee be present as well however that date was not suitable to him.
The Director added that any Member who wished to attend should let him know. It was good to hear that some nominations had been made for the Borough.
EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS
AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the public/press be excluded during the discussion of the under noted item of confidential business.
(Councillor Cathcart declared an interest and left the meeting at 8.26 pm)
16. EXTENSION OF ARC21 SERVICE CONTRACTS (FILE 72011) (Appendix V)
***COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
35
EC.07.02.18 PM
READMITTANCE OF PUBLIC/PRESS
AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Cummings, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the public/press be readmitted.
(Councillor Cathcart entered the meeting at 8.28 pm)
17. ANY OTHER NOTIFIED BUSINESS
17.1 Damage to the Grassed Area in Ballyholme Park, Bangor
Alderman Henry had had that issue raised with him on Sunday evening past. Damage had been caused by vans driving on the footway to the toilet block. However, he was aware that the Head of Waste and Cleansing Services had been addressing the problem.
NOTED.
TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated at 8.30 pm.
36
Item 8.3
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 8 February 2018 at 7.00 pm.
PRESENT:
In the Chair: Councillor Cummings
Aldermen: Irvine (7.05 pm) McDowell M Smith
Councillors: Adair Smart Allen Smith Armstrong-Cotter Walker Cooper Wilson Gilmour Woods Ferguson Menagh
Also in Councillor Muir Attendance:
In Attendance: Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning (S McCullough), Head of Regeneration (B Dorrian), Head of Economic Development (C McGill), Temporary Heads of Tourism (S Mahaffy and R Richardson) and Democratic Services Officer (J Glasgow).
1. APOLOGIES
No apologies were received.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Walker declared an interest in Item 13 – Prince’s Trust Development Awards.
Alderman McDowell declared an interest in Item 10 – East Border Region.
3. PRESENTATION – TOURISM NI (Appendix I)
The Chairman welcomed Mr McGrillen to the meeting and invited him to make his presentation.
Mr McGrillen commenced by advising that his background was in Local Government and he had worked for Belfast City Council and Down District Council. He undertook a powerpoint presentation (appendix I) which displayed the proposed strategic RDC.08.02.18 direction of tourism for Northern Ireland. What he displayed was the thinking of Tourism NI Senior Management Team, those proposals had been agreed by the Tourism Board however due to the current political situation had not been approved by a Minister or the Executive.
Mr McGrillen outlined that the goal was to double the value of NI Tourism by 2030 and create 20,000 new jobs. It was envisaged that would be done through the development and marketing of an internationally compelling proposition of scale built upon Northern Ireland’s Landscape, Heritage and Culture, making it renowned for World Class 3-5 day breaks.
(Alderman Irvine entered the meeting – 7.05 pm)
The hope was for the exploration of core markets including the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain, Germany, North America, Australia, China and Mr McGrillen outlined the opportunities within each which were detailed in the appendix. In terms of Northern Ireland, the domestic market would continue to make a significant contribution, key for regional and seasonal dispersal. He advised that Tourism NI had undertaken a large piece of work in respect of the Republic of Ireland as to why Northern Ireland had not secured the business from the Republic as expected. In respect of China that was the world’s largest outbound market, the fastest growing and they processed £10m passports a year.
The focus was on the undernoted segments: -
- Culturally Curious - Social Energisers - Great Escapers - Golf - Screen Tourism - Cruises - Conferences & Incentives.
It was hoped to create a tourism package consisting of world class products, visitor experiences and events driving regional dispersion and year round business. Mr McGrillen provided the North West 200 as an example. He also referred to the availability of the skilled labour pool in different markets to deliver an international competitive industry.
Mr McGrillen further outlined the undernoted key issues:-
- Northern Ireland had a unique combination of compelling natural landscape, culture and heritage and a warm welcome - Although a small country and a relatively young nation in tourism terms, Northern Ireland had much to be proud of - However, knowledge of Northern Ireland and its product offering, beyond a small number of key sites, remained relatively limited in the international marketplace - Work was required to redraw the wealth of assets from a visitor perspective – the visitor offer needed to get stronger, be presented in a more coherent and
2
RDC.08.02.18
connected manner and be more accessible to compete in a competitive international landscape - The Proposition of Scale for Northern Ireland aimed to address those issues by shifting the focus from standalone attractions to a more coherent means of joining together, articulating and communicating experiences to the international visitor - The Proposition would be a catalyst in driving the next phase of growth for Northern Ireland tourism right across Northern Ireland - In the short to medium term it would coordinate the in-market messaging required to boost NI profile in the international market place but would also provide a coordinated and longer term framework for sustainable tourism experience development.
Mr McGrillen displayed to the Committee the matrix that was used when giving consideration to world class visitor experiences. Those unique to Northern Ireland had the potential to be demand generators for international visitors. It was important that those events had content or were an experience which was strong enough to make people want to travel to Northern Ireland. He explained that Tourism NI wanted to develop an overall visitor experience, the Council had a role to play in creating a package across the Boroughs for visitors to experience.
The Chairman thanked Mr McGrillen for the very comprehensive presentation and invited questions from Members.
Councillor Smart thanked Mr McGrillen for the informative presentation and his willingness to engage. In respect of the Council’s Integrated Tourism Regeneration and Economic Development Strategy, he questioned how that fitted into Tourism NI aspirations along with the Council’s schedule of events. In response Mr McGrillen stated that Tourism NI did engage with Council Officers in the development of the Councils strategy which very much linked to the Northern Ireland Stratgy. He stated that the Borough was an appealing destination and provided a diverse heritage and culture offering however the challenge was how those offerings could be packaged together and sold in an international market place. Mr McGrillen highlighted that a challenge for Tourism NI was that their financial budget for the incoming year was not known.
Alderman McDowell raised a question regarding collaborating with other local authorities and he referred to the legacy Kingdoms of Down that had collapsed during the merger. There now did not seem to be a way to collaboratively work together as Council’s and have Councillors involvement in the future proposals. In response Mr McGrillen stated that there was a role for elected members to play to influence the strategic direction. He stated that it was unfortunate those bodies no longer existed as he noted that the consumer did not see the Council boundaries and there was a need to look through the lens of the consumer. He also highlighted the need for a coherent and joined up approach across the Council’s but he recognised there were political constraints.
Alderman McDowell highlighted the importance of the Councils working together and he felt the Belfast City Region Deal would generate visits to the area. In particular, with reference to the City Deal he questioned how projects were judged, what made
3
RDC.08.02.18 them a success, and how their economic drivers and economic return could be measured.
Mr McGrillen stated that it was important that an attraction was not measured on its own costs/income, as an example he referred to the Waterfront Hall, that facility did not make money and was subsided by the Council however generated significant economic activity. With reference to the City Deal projects, Mr McGrillen stated that research should be carried out to ascertain if the demand was there and also to use the matrix to assess those for inclusion. He also suggested that Council look at best practice elsewhere.
In respect of providing a cultural experience for the tourist, Alderman Irvine asked if Tourism NI engaged with the Orange Order in respect of the 12th July celebrations. That event was a huge attraction and was great for local businesses. Alderman Irvine also asked about encouraging visitors from oversees countries such as North America and what strategies were in place to help encourage higher spending.
Mr McGrillen stated that Tourism NI had worked with the Orange Order on a showcase event. He stated that the museums in Northern Ireland now provided an offering and told the culture of the province and how it had evolved. Mr McGrillen stated that a challenge was there was only one direct flight, 3 days a week flying into Belfast International, the majority of the flights from America entered into Dublin. It was difficult when tourists disembarked in Dublin to encourage them to cross the Borough. Tourism NI were working with the ground handlers in Dublin to provide a product offering to give visitors alternative routes.
Councillor Walker stated that it was an opportunity for the Borough neighbouring Belfast however it was at a disadvantage as it had limited hotels to offer. He asked Mr McGrillen’ s views on a spa type hotel facility for the Borough. Mr McGrillen stated that the limited number of hotels in the Borough did create a challenge for encouraging people to stay in the Borough, particularly when there were a number of 4* hotels in Belfast. He felt a spa type, wellness hotel would be of great benefit to the Borough in Bangor or on the shores of Strangford. Mr McGrillen referred to the success of the Galgorm resort.
The Mayor felt the focus was often on Belfast and the North Coast and this Borough was often forgot about. He highlighted the tourist offerings along the Peninsula and that the most easterly part of the Borough was in Ballyhalbert. The Mayor questioned why the Borough was not of interest and what were Tourism NI plans for the area. In response Mr McGrillen stated that it was a challenge to encourage people beyond Belfast he stated that Belfast and the Causeway Coast were big tourist attractions. The challenge was to encourage tourists to travel further, to pick a selection of visitor experiences, package together and make a product offering.
Alderman Smith highlighted the welcome and tourist memorabilia for example postcards that she had received whilst travelling on Cruise Ships and she felt those were often remembered by the tourist whilst attracting them back. She felt China was a big market which was being missed out on. She stated that the Borough had a lot to offer and was of the view that Tourism NI needed to promote Northern Ireland harder. In response Mr McGrillen explained that parts of Northern Ireland could often
4
RDC.08.02.18 be seen as too fragmented from a tourist point of view and there was a need to package attractions together to sell to the tourist providing greater impact and appeal.
Alderman Smith questioned if Northern Ireland’s past history was a drawback for the visitor. In response Mr McGrillen stated that the perceptions did create challenges.
Councillor Wilson asked if there was a visitor portal available.
(Councillor Smart withdrew from the meeting – 7.53 pm)
In response to Councillor Wilson, Mr McGrillen stated that there were too many websites for the visitor and the typical person did not recognise the Council boundaries. He stated that the digital agenda was one of the biggest challenges for Tourism NI and they had recently recruited a Chief Digital Officer with that task in mind.
(Councillor Smart re-entered the meeting - 7.55 pm)
Councillor Menagh remarked on the Tourist attractions which the Borough had to offer e.g. Scrabo Tower. He advised there was a proposal for a hotel on the Comber Road and he recognised that was needed.
Mr McGrillen stated that he appreciated the opportunity to present and said that he was happy to come back any time, he then withdrew from the meeting.
NOTED.
4. CHRISTIAN HERITAGE WORKING GROUP MINUTES DATED 16 JANUARY 2018 (Appendix II)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Woods, seconded by Councillor Wilson, that the minutes be noted.
5. THE MOST BEAUTIFUL BAYS IN THE WORLD ASSOCIATION – UPDATE REPORT (FILE TO/TD13)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that in April 2017, Council approved a contribution up to £800 (with a further £800 to be provided by Tourism NI), to cover associated costs for a familiarisation trip of Strangford Lough in 2017, by representatives of Office de Tourisme, Vannes. That was to assess whether Strangford Lough would be suitable for nomination of a candidacy for the Most Beautiful Bays in the World Association. Since the approval, the Temporary Head of Tourism had been discussing the potential benefits of such a visit and candidacy,
5
RDC.08.02.18 and its potential running costs with Tourism NI and colleagues in Newry, Mourne and Down District Council. The following had been the outcome of those investigations:
- Tourism NI had not been able to confirm specific national benefits of the candidacy, however it had offered to send a supporting letter should the Councils choose to pursue the candidacy - A senior tourism colleague in Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, had expressed interest in the opportunity, however the Council was not in the position to commit to a joint candidacy nomination, due to their ongoing work on Experience Development and alignment of marketing resource at this time.
Further communication from the Tourism Officer in Vannes, France had confirmed the following:
- The Most Beautiful Bays in the World Club was created in 1997. - The club was the owner of the trade mark “Most Beautiful Bays in the World" and has 41 bays members all over the world. - They invite candidacy from areas who live near or by the sea to discuss similar interests/problems – described as a ‘crossroad of exchange and information’ - The brand of Most Beautiful Bays of the World was used by some members for protection and promotion and instils pride in the local community. - Sharing of information could be undertaken at international meetings. - To become a candidate a delegation of 3 would be invited to Brittany, France in April to present on the Strangford Lough area at the General Assembly. - If accepted, the following fees would be applied fees: - 2360€ + admission fees 9440€ (4 years) = 11800€. - Having established the above detail and spoken further to colleagues in Tourism NI, it was clear that there would be limited economic return and tangible practical tourism benefits on that particular membership. At that time, the Tourism unit does not believe that the limited benefits, the required financial contribution and further costs associated with travel due to the presentation requirement, was a good use of resource. Therefore, the nominal budget previously allocated to assist with travel costs for a benchmarking visit by the judging panel would no longer be required or planned. All contacts would be advised accordingly about this decision.
RECOMMENDED that the Council does not progress with the familiarisation visit or application to ‘Most Beautiful Bays’ at this time.
Proposed by the Mayor (Councillor Adair), seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the recommendation be adopted.
The Mayor welcomed the recommendation and voiced the view that the project would not deliver for this Borough. He believed the Council had a good tourism product to operate on its own strength.
AGREED, that the recommendation be adopted.
6
RDC.08.02.18
6. EVALUATION OF TOURISM EVENTS PROGRAMME 2017 (FILE TO/EV38) (Appendix III)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching details of the Events Performance. The report provided the undernoted detail:-
Background
The Tourism NI Events Strategic Vision 2020 stated that ‘events can drive visitor numbers, generate increased spend and provide platforms for the visitor to interact with local culture, local people and explore the landscapes, towns and villages. Events can showcase authentic places and experiences and provide a clear call to action for a potential visitor’. TNI had stated that on average each overnight visitor attending an event spends £55 on commercial accommodation and £18 on discretionary additional spend. All of that was very relevant for Ards and North Down, with tourism events continuing to be a very strong driver for the local economy.
The delivery of events contributed to objectives in relation to two of the four key headings within the Council’s Corporate Plan:
Place: Ensuring we make the very best of the natural, cultural and environmental assets of our borough.
Prosperity: Ensuring the borough’s towns and rural localities are prosperous, vibrant and attractive.
Aim and Objectives
The aim of tourism events was to deliver a programme of high quality events which showcase the Borough as a premier tourism destination and generates economic benefits by attracting visitors from beyond the borough. Specific objectives were:
1. To increase visitor numbers to the borough. 2. To increase and generate spend in the borough. 3. To act as a catalyst for local businesses to use event opportunities for their development. 4. To use events within marketing campaigns to profile the borough’s authentic tourism products, aimed at key target markets.
2017 Overview
In December 2016 the Council agreed a programme and associated budget for delivery of events between April and November 2017. The programme had now been completed and the vast bulk of associated expenditure incurred, making it possible to assess performance against targets and budget. Formal market research was conducted at 9/14 events (the cost of such research constrains formal
7
RDC.08.02.18 research at all of them), enabling estimates of expenditure and the proportion of visitors from a) outside the borough and b) outside NI.
The events programme attracted a total of 168,700 people, exceeding the target by 15% and generating a total of £496,557 of free PR, at an average cost to the Council of £3.60 per person attending. No significant incidents of concern arose at any event, although disabled access was raised by one customer in relation to the Groomsport event in August, leading to a closer focus on this issue going forward.
The average proportion of visitors (i.e. those from outside the borough or beyond) was estimated at 40.6%, the majority of those being domestic, although the average proportion of visitors from outside NI was just 4.6%.
The following commentary on the individual events referred to in the appendix, Events Performance. It should be noted that the approved event budget shown in Appendix 1 related only to event content and marketing, whereas the total cost included other costs such as those arising from works and cleansing, which were budgeted in other departments. In three cases the event budget was supplemented by transfers from other budgets or external grant (see footnote to table).
Acronyms in the appendix were:
SPA – Spend per Attendee (i.e. absolute amount spent) CPA – Cost per Attendee (actual event cost/actual attendance) ASG – Attendee Spend Generated (SPA/CPA – the spend generated for every £1 spent by Council)
Easter Event, Good Friday, Newtownards, Friday 14 April
The event fell short of its attendance target of 15,000, with an actual attendance of 7,000 (46%) with the majority being local residents to the Borough (83%). Difficulties in relation to the choice of date and time plus very wet weather were contributing factors. Although the officers had worked with local traders to encourage extended opening hours, the response was poor and probably impacted on visitor spend, resulting in a ASG of only £2.16, against an average of £3.98 across the whole events programme.
Spring Carnival, Bangor, Easter Monday Monday 17 April Much work had been done this year to address perceived and actual problems with anti-social behaviour at the event. Event attracted 15,000 attendees, which was lower than in previous years. As a result of extensive partnership work with the PSNI, Chamber of Commerce, Translink, Council Neighbourhood and Environment Team, Street Pastors and the SOS Bus, incidents of underage misbehaviour were minimised and officers were confident that perceptions of Bangor on Easter Monday would have been changed for the better. The event generated one of the highest SPAs in the programme at £17.67, and with cost relatively low was the highest ranked event on ASG. The total cost of the event to Council included elements of town centre activity which were covered by a supplementary budget transfer of £5k from Project 24. Significant work being undertaken to develop the event this year.
8
RDC.08.02.18
May Day, Holywood, Monday 1st May Attendance at the event almost doubled the target and other results, such as PR value and proportion of visitors from outside the borough, were also very favourable - although it was likely that a large proportion of those attending may had been from the Belfast side of Holywood. The event content and format were amended this year, removing the main stage and replacing it with more ‘walkabout’ entertainment. The traditional Maypole Dancing element once again proved one of the biggest attractors. In terms of CPA the event was the lowest cost in the programme, but also generated a low SPA. The officers would be ambitious of raising this via more intervention with local traders and the Chamber to encourage more shops to stay open on May Day.
Pipeband Championships, Saturday 13 May The event met its attendance target and at a relatively low CPA of £2.03. Once again RSPBNI presented a well organised programme. No formal market research was carried out at this event, however as it was part of a Province-wide competition it could be assumed that most of the competing band members and their supporters had travelled from beyond the borough. The RSPBNI had cited proximity to Bangor town centre, for refreshments etc, as a major part of the appeal of the Castle Park venue, and it was therefore likely that the event boosts spend in the town.
Armed Forces Day/Sea Bangor, Saturday/Sunday 24th and 25th June The partnership event reaped excellent results both in attendance – target exceeded by 8,000 (16%) - and free publicity (£167,106 secured) for a CPV of only £2.51. ASG was also above average at £4.43 with the event attracting the higher percentage of out of state visitors. As part of a national programme of Armed Forces Day events, coverage from Bangor was used in three out of four available slots on the national Armed Forces bulletins. The event included new successful partnership elements, with SERC and the Chamber, including an ‘Ambassador’ programme whereby local students took on the role of guides throughout the town. Translink also enabled use of their station site to add value to the event, and My Main Street ran a complementary campaign and provided free promotion and marketing of AFD/Sea Bangor activity. The total cost of the event was the highest in the programme at just over £145k however the event budget was supplemented by grants of £20,000 from Tourism NI and £10,000 from the Armed Forces.
Comber Earlies Food Festival, Saturday 17th June Date-wise the event was in competition with the Belfast Tall Ships event, which presented difficulties in recruiting enough artisan stalls, however the attendance target was met and the event undoubtedly benefited from very pleasant summer weather. However, ASG was the lowest of the nine events due to a combination of a below average SPA and above average CPA. Despite this, the event’s unique selling proposition - the PGI status of the Comber Early Potato - was recognised as valuable, and going forward there were ambitions to continue to grow this event as a flagship one within the borough’s development as a premier food destination. The event budget shown in the appendix was supplemented by a grant contribution of £3,000 from DAERA.
Summer Entertainment, Sundays throughout July and August, Ward Park
9
RDC.08.02.18
The programme exceeded its attendance target by 85% across all Sundays, for a low CPA of £1.31, but in the absence of formal market research, which would be costly across all Sundays, visitor spend or origin was not known.
Portavogie Seafood Festival, Saturday 12 August That was a fledgling event, in only its second year, but attracted an increase in artisan stallholders wishing to participate compared to Year 1. Target attendance was exceeded by 1,000 (22%), with celebrity chef Nick Nairn proving a big attraction. The proportion of out of borough visitors was just below average, although the SPA was one of the highest across the programme at £19.57. The CPA was also one of the highest in the programme at £5.20 however, reflective of the issues to be tackled in mounting an event in a non-conventional event venue, Portavogie Harbour.
Groomsport Music and Fireworks, Saturday 19 August This event achieved its target audience, despite being in competition with Party at the Pitch, Sundown Market and other Open House Festival events on the same date. These competing events may be part of the explanation for a relatively low PR value achieved, especially in comparison to the May Day event in Holywood, which had a similar budget. SPA was favourable relative to cost however, giving a high ASG of £5.71. The event mainly attracted a local audience and the proportion of visitors from outside the borough was well below average.
Donaghadee Lights Up, Saturday 9th September
In its second year, this event exceeded its target audience and performed very well in terms of PR achieved. SPA was high at £18.51 and anecdotally all restaurants and accommodation were at capacity over the course of the event. The CPA (£4.84) was relatively high and reflects the requirement to spend money on new safety measures at the Commons site, on the advice of the Risk team, following experience gained in Year 1. Going forward there are plans to extend the event over several days to derive maximum benefit from the Council’s expenditure.
Seapark Fireworks Display, Saturday 4 November The original date on the weekend running up to Halloween had to be changed due to severe weather, but the event performed well, exceeding its attendance target by 80% despite, or perhaps because of, the change, with potentially fewer competing events. The proportion of both out of borough and out of state visitors was high, likely reflecting Holywood’s proximity to Belfast. ASG was below average but this reflects a much higher than anticipated event cost associated with the rescheduling of the event and consequent duplicate marketing activity.
Bangor Christmas Switch On, Saturday 18 November Work with Bangor Chamber to produce a local market paid off, with this event exceeding its target attendance by 5,000 (50%). CPA was low at £1.82. Once again My Main Street and Translink partnered with the Council to spread event-related activity throughout the town centre and SERC provided Ambassadors to assist those attending. As no formal market research was carried out at the event, no data was available for the proportion of out of borough or out of state visitors – although these would be low as the event was essentially a community event.
10
RDC.08.02.18
Newtownards Christmas Switch On, Friday 24 November This event was well attended, falling just short of the target of 3,500, with Conway Square’s capacity a limiting factor. The children’s parade, led by the Spark drum band, was well received. PR value achieved was good but CPA was also high at £4.89. As no formal market research was carried out at this event, no data was available for the proportion of out of borough or out of state visitors – although these would be low as the event was essentially a community event.
Holywood Christmas Switch On, Saturday 25 November The programme of entertainment delivered by Holywood and District Community Council attracted steady numbers throughout the day, although audience numbers for the library element were low. Overall attendance including the switch-on itself was disappointing at 26% of target – resulting in a high CPa of £8.46, the highest in the programme. As no formal market research was carried out at this event, no data was available for the proportion of out of borough or out of state visitors – although those would be low as the event was essentially a community event.
Return on Investment
The potential economic return to the Borough from the events programme could be estimated using a range of average spend per person, from £13.33 from our own market research to the £18.00 quoted previously, from Tourism NI, for discretionary spend by overnight visitors. The calculation gives a total estimated spend of between £2.25 and £3.04 million.
Taking TNI’s figure for expenditure on overnight accommodation (£55) together with our average attendance by out of state visitors at events (4.6%), an additional £427,000 might be added, although it cannot be guaranteed that all overnight visitors to our events also stayed in the borough.
One caveat was of course that 60%+ of attendees at events were local, and using the £13.33 figure these would account for £1.44 million of expenditure at events. An undefined portion of that sum was likely to have been spent elsewhere in the borough if not spent at an event that day. All in all, however, it would be reasonable to suggest that the Council’s expenditure on the tourism events programme of £469,500 produced a return in the range £1.5m - £2.5m. Added to that were the intangible benefits for the borough and its residents derived from the programme, of making the best of the borough’s natural, cultural and environmental assets and ensuring its towns and villages were prosperous, vibrant and attractive.
Building on those achievements and lessons learned, next year’s programme of events had already been agreed by Council. Planning for that would also draw on the findings of the Integrated Tourism, Regeneration and Development Strategy, particularly in relation to developing events for visitors, particularly out of state visitors, and associated visitor spend.
RECOMMENDED that Council notes this report.
Proposed by Councillor Woods, seconded by the Mayor (Councillor Adair), that the recommendation be adopted.
11
RDC.08.02.18
The Mayor commended the work of the Events team for the organisation of the good programme of events. He remarked that he had attended a number of events which were well organised and highlighted that from the appendix it could be seen that some of the events had exceeded their targets.
(Councillor Menagh withdrew from the meeting – 8.01 pm)
AGREED, that the recommendation be adopted.
7. EUROPEAN CULTURAL HERITAGE FUND – EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (FILE TO/TM4)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that the Heritage Lottery Fund (administrator) and Tourism NI (funder) had opened a time limited call for applications to a fund seeking “innovative” projects to highlight historical and cultural assets in this the 2018 year of European Culture and Heritage.
The first stage was an “Expression of Interest” to be followed by full applications for projects passing this initial stage.
The fund was £400,000 nationwide with an expected 8-10 projects being funded at approximately £40,000 - £50,000 each. The fund was 100% grant if successful. The projects had to be delivered on a partner based application and follow a variety of criteria. The fund was for revenue projects, not capital, with ‘innovation’ being a key criteria.
AND Officers from Tourism, Events, Arts and Museums met to discuss possible expressions and three were put forward for consideration. Two augmented reality (AR) projects and one living history animated based project.
One of those had been successful through the EOI stage. That was an AR project, partnering with local sites and National Agencies alongside Newry Mourne and Down and Fermanagh and Omagh District Councils, focusing on the subject of the Columban Way Christian Heritage route through NI and covers sites related to this topic. That project had been successful in the initial process and AND had been asked to further work up a full application for submission in February.
RECOMMENDED that Council proceeds with full application to the European Cultural Heritage Fund for a Columban Way Christian Heritage route augmented reality project.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Woods, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.
12
RDC.08.02.18
8. SCRABO TOWER OPENING – NOTICE OF MOTION (TO/TD21) (Appendix IV)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching response letter from HED. The report detailed that following a NOM, the Chief Executive wrote to the Secretary of State and Historical Environment Division, DfC, to request that the opening hours for Scrabo Tower be extended during summer months and that entry be free of charge.
The Deputy Director of HED, Iain Greenway, had now responded indicating that HED was currently working on an agreement for the 2018 visitor season and considering options for opening hours and an entry fee. Visitor numbers of 4,500 last summer indicated significant interest in the site. There was very little resistance to the entry charge levied last year and HED intended to apply one in 2018 to cover the operating cost of access.
HED would confirm the final details, which may include additional interpretation and exhibits in the Tower, in due course and Mr Greenway had indicated he would be happy to meet Members to discuss further, on request.
RECOMMENDED that Council invites HED to present their plans for Scrabo Tower and their other Ulster attractions within the Borough to a future R&D Committee.
Proposed by Councillor Menagh, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the recommendation be adopted.
Councillor Menagh noted the response however he stated that his views remained the same on the matter. He welcomed the recommendation.
Councillor Cooper highlighted the importance of the Council showcasing its jewel tourist attractions. He stated that he was surprised by the footfall and he felt that needed to be capitalised upon.
Councillor Armstrong-Cotter welcomed the recommendation and she felt that inviting the HED would provide the Committee the opportunity to share its passion and expertise on Scrabo Tower. She hoped the presentation could occur as soon as possible to ensure plans were in place for the summer months.
The Mayor advised that he had met with the HED team and he felt the Council’s comments would be taken on board. He stated that Scrabo Tower could be a top visitor attraction for the Borough however highlighted the need for Council to make investment.
Alderman McDowell recalled the tearoom that had existed at Scrabo Tower some years ago and he felt there was potential in providing refreshments. He was of the view that the Council should manage the facility and stated that he did not feel people were happy with paying a charge for entering the tower.
AGREED, that the recommendation be adopted.
13
RDC.08.02.18
9. BID FOR PIPEBAND CHAMPIONSHIP 2018 (FILE TO/EV25)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that the Ards and North Down Pipeband Championships was a very popular item on the annual events programme and attracted an audience of 5,000 to Castle Park, Bangor in 2017. To secure a competition in their area, Councils were obliged to place a bid to the Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association, which then considered the request and allocated a date to the successful Councils.
As part of the report submitted to Council for approval of the events programme for the first quarter of 2018, officers had indicated they would work with the Association to explore the possibility of Newtownards as the venue, prior to any bid. Officers from Tourism, Parks and Leisure met to review potential possible sites, however only one possibility was identified in Newtownards, Londonderry Park. At the request of the Mayor, officers also considered Rosemount Estate, Greyabbey.
A site meeting was held on 6 December with the RSPBANI Project Manager and Director at the two sites and their subsequent report has now been received. The two sites were assessed on the following criteria:
Access Topography Local amenities Car parking
The findings of the Association were as follows:
Londonderry Park There was good access to the site. The topography was deemed possibly suitable, however due to the redevelopment of the park only the playing fields to the right could be used. One obstacle was the cricket pitch which would be required to accommodate two Pipe Band Competitions and a Drum Major competition arena. Given the cricket season would have started, the pitch would be in use by local clubs. There were adequate shops and restaurants in the town centre to serve the event spectators and competitors, however the town centre would not be within easy walking distance and would require shuttle buses to be provided. Car parking was a very significant concern due to the redevelopment of the site, which had significantly reduced the available parking area.
Rosemount Estate, Greyabbey There was adequate access to the site but access to the village via public transport was a concern. The topography of the site was not deemed suitable due to the terrain, with insufficient flat land to accommodate two Pipe Band Competition arenas and a Drum Major competition arena. There were adequate shops and restaurants in the village to serve the event spectators, however with limited choice. There were concerns that there were insufficient tarmac or asphalt areas for car and coach parking. Parking would be confined to grass areas which would not be suitable in the event of heavy rain.
14
RDC.08.02.18
The RSPBANI Branch deemed that for their purposes neither site was suitable to host the 2018 Championships and recommended that the venue remained Castle Park, Bangor on the basis that it had suitable topography, excellent access for visiting bands with a Translink Hub nearby, adequate car parking and a town centre with excellent local amenities within easy walking distance.
Given the RSPBANI assessment, there was no prospect that a bid for the 2018 Championships would succeed based on either Londonderry Park or Rosemount Estate. Their assessment also highlighted the lack of suitable Council facilities for events with a large footprint in Newtownards, particularly since the redevelopment of Londonderry Park, which was an issue the Council may wish to consider separately going forward. The issues of adequate physical space, parking and transport links, combined with proximity to shops and restaurants, were particular prerequisites to maximise the success of such events, from the perspective of organisers and visitor attendance.
RECOMMENDED that the Council approves a bid to RSPBANI to host the Championships on Saturday 12 May 2018 at Castle Park, Bangor.
Proposed by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Wilson, that the recommendation be adopted.
Proposed by Councillor Smart, seconded by Councillor Menagh, as an amendment that the Committee defers the RSPBANI bid until full Council on 28th February 2018. This will allow Officers to arrange a meeting between Newtownards DEA Elected Members and RSPBANI in an effort to better understand the issues in having the championships in Newtownards and what solutions may exist.
Councillor Smart felt it was important to have the meeting to better understand the issues and the views of the Pipe Band Association. He was not suggesting the decision be overturned however he felt there were issues that had been raised in respect of Newtownards as a venue that could be overcome. Councillor Smart noted there were a few number of events in the calendar that were held in Newtownards.
Councillor Armstrong-Cotter concurred with the remarks of Councillor Smart. She felt there were options which could be explored including the use of private land for the event e.g. Castlebawn site. Councillor Armstrong-Cotter felt the meeting would be useful to explore the issues and attempt to resolve which she believed were not insurmountable.
The Mayor supported the amendment however was mindful that event was not the Council’s and the decision was up to the Pipe Band Association. He hoped the delay would not cause any harm to the event and recalled that the last time the event was held in Newtownards was 2014. The Mayor advised that he had recently spoke with the organisers and they had advised that their preferred venue was Bangor. He highlighting the importance of keeping the event within the Borough.
Alderman Irvine stressed the importance of retaining the fantastic event within the Borough. He had no issue with the event being held in Newtownards however hoped
15
RDC.08.02.18 that if no agreement was reached at the meeting then the event would be held in Castle Park.
Councillor Gilmour felt the Committee needed to bear in mind that the Pipeband Championships was not a Council event and she did not want the event to be jeopardised. She stated that she had no issues with the event being held in another location however noted that the event was to be held on 12th May and time was of the essence. Councillor Gilmour stated that she would be opposed to any delay beyond 28th February and she did not want the organisers to be inconvenienced as it was a big event for the pipeband community. She requested clarity if a report would be brought back to the Council meeting as she felt that a formal recommendation was needed by then.
The Director provided reassurance that having Newtownards as the location for the event had been considered possibly on a rotational basis between Newtownards and Bangor. However, she welcomed the opportunity for the meeting to be held to see if the issues could be addressed. The Director highlighted that a decision would have to be taken by the end of the month and stated that a report would need to be brought to Council.
Councillor Smart was content to include a request for a report being brought back to the Council meeting within his proposal.
AGREED, that the Committee defers the RSPBANI bid until full Council on 28th February 2018. This will allow Officers to arrange a meeting between Newtownards DEA Elected Members and RSPBANI in an effort to better understand the issues in having the championships in Newtownards and what solutions may exist and report back to Council in February.
10. EAST BORDER REGION (141032)
(Alderman McDowell declared an interest and withdrew from the meeting – 8.17 pm)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing the undernoted:-
Background:
Ards and North Down Borough Council had been involved in working with the East Border Region Group (EBR) during the last three rounds of European Structural Funds. Ards Borough Council joined EBR in 2003 and North Down Borough Council joined in 2006. Under Interreg III and Interreg IV, EBR had managed the funds on behalf of the thirteen areas involved in the group. Under Interreg IV funding it was estimated that for every £1.00 each Council spent on programmes, £17.60 was leveraged in each area.
Interreg VA and Transnational Interreg V projects would be managed and delivered differently between now and 2023 and it had been agreed by Central Government that any funds committed under the Interreg V programme would be honoured for the period post Brexit. The East Border Region Group had partnered with Intertrade
16
RDC.08.02.18
Ireland, Northern Ireland Water and Irish Water (and other smaller partners) as well as with local authorities to bring the expertise necessary to implement any successful projects under those funds.
Since the opening of the latest programme, EBR had applied for, or contributed to the applications of a number of large and small projects on behalf of the region and the ones listed in the synopsis have been either agreed or were being considered under stage 2 and were relevant to our Council area. The total number of projects which EBR had applied for represents a combined investment of €91.13 million from Interreg V however, several projects had secured a financial management role for EBR and not all the projects were relevant to every Council area across the region.
Whilst eligible projects apply across the spectrum of Council Functions, the Regeneration, Development and Planning Directorate was the source of EBR membership funding, consequently Regeneration and Development Committee was the parent Committee to approve continued membership fees to EBR.
Synopsis of Ards and North Down Borough Council’s involvement and opportunities in EBR projects
1. Co Innovate Programme. (Approved for €16.6m) This large “small business support” INTERREG VA project was being led by Intertrade Ireland and EBR and was a partner alongside the Enterprise Agencies, Leo’s and Scottish Enterprise.
Key Outputs: 1,408 SMEs would attend workshops to improve their understanding of the innovation ecosystem on a cross-border basis and their capability to benefit from it business status reviews of 1,408 SMEs to determine progression through the programme development of a new innovation audit tool designed for SMEs and cross border R&I (research and innovation) in-company innovation audits for 469 SMEs with tailored feedback to support the identification of R&I opportunities for these firms and appropriate interventions 94 enterprises would receive an intensive capability development programme to address major internal barriers preventing them from realising their full potential of cross-border innovation 50 enterprises would benefit from research institutions’ input as part of a cross- border innovation internship programme 70 enterprises would receive a qualified graduate supported by a cross-border research institution from another part of the eligible region to work specifically on a new product/process or service development the development of at least 4 R&I focussed networks that span the entire eligible region in areas such as Agri Food and 15 cross-border SME partnerships supported by a research institution at least 5 research institutions would be working with SMEs on a cross-border collaboration and 19 enterprises would work in cross-border collaborative partnerships with grant support
17
RDC.08.02.18
Ards and North Down Borough Council was eligible for all aspects of that project and businesses would be targeted across the area. The local Enterprise Agencies would be responsible for ensuring that companies were selected for the programme. Also EBR will invite EBR Local Authority Economic Development managers to regular meetings to brief them on project progress and how local enterprises could avail of that substantial amount of money. The programme was currently underway and it was envisaged that 32 businesses from the Ards and North Down would benefit. Update monitoring reports would be completed at regular intervals throughout the life of the programme.
2. CANN Project. Biodiversity Project (Collaborative Action for Natura Networks) Approved for €8.17 m The main aim of the project was to raise sites to favourable status. The partners are developing a consortium bid to submit to the Habitat and Species Call. Ulster Wildlife would be responsible for assessing sites across the EBR Region for potential participation in the programme. It was hoped to launch the programme in Spring 2018. Note: When assessing the conservation status of habitats, four parameters are considered. These are: range, area, structure and function (referred to as habitat condition) and future prospects. For species, the parameters are: range, population, habitat (extent and condition) and future prospects. Each of these parameters is assessed as being in one of the following conditions: Favourable, Unfavourable-inadequate, Unfavourable-Bad, or Unknown.
3. Bathing Water Quality Project (Stage 2 assessment €1.2 m) EBR was working with a number of key stakeholders including; Ards and North Down Borough Council, Louth County Council, Newry, Mourne and Down DC, UCD (University College Dublin) and AFBI (Agri-Food and Bioscience Institute) to develop a predictive bathing water quality system for use on beaches. UCD were Lead Partner on this bid. One of the pilot beaches which would be used on this project was Ballyholme Beach and the Director of Community and Wellbeing, Graham Bannister, was working on developing the project. Signage would be erected on the beach informing the public of the daily quality of the water. Systems to date had only been able to do that retrospectively.
Summary
This synopsis highlights the extent of Ards and North Down Borough Council’s potential involvement in a mix of INTERREG VA and Transnational INTERREG projects. Projects 2 and 3 above had yet to come on stream. EBR was still waiting for approval for some of those projects. Further reports would be brought in due time to the Committee to update members on the status of those applications.
EBR, through its Steering Committee had the ability to ensure that its members were informed and involved in the development of these projects and any other opportunities coming from the Interreg programmes (all Strands).
Each year the position of Chair rotates among member Councils; for the year 2018, Alderman Jim Fletcher had been appointed as Chair, with the Vice-Chair position
18
RDC.08.02.18 falling to Councillor, Aidan Campbell, Monaghan County Council. In total three Council Members represent Ards and North Down Borough Council on the EBR board and were therefore involved with the development of any projects for the benefit of the Borough. Those being Alderman J Fletcher, Alderman B Keery and Alderman A McDowell.
EBR had requested that Ards and North Down Borough Council sets aside £20,000 for the financial year 2018-19 in order to support the expertise and coordination work provided by the group to deliver and implement these projects.
It was clear from the report that the focus of funds has shifted from enterprise to environment and there were less opportunities for SMEs to benefit under business development programmes. However, there were still opportunities to investigate and pursue opportunities under: . Coastal Erosion and Management . Tourism – Ancient Ways, New Ways . Rural Development – Cross Border Co-operation projects . Biomass Supply Chain
Increasingly the annual contribution would represent less value for money as involvement in projects going forward would not yield the same benefits for Ards and North Down as previously and with Brexit on the horizon the opportunities for European funded projects would cease.
RECOMMENDED that: (i) Members agree to allocate £20,000 funding to the East Border Region Group for the financial year 2018-19 to support the on-going work under the Interreg V programme, to secure funds and ensure the involvement of Ards and North Down Borough Council in these upcoming opportunities, (ii) Reviews the contribution amount in any subsequent year, dependant on project opportunities.
Councillor Smith referred to the proposed contribution of £20,000 and questioned if only 32 businesses would benefit within the Borough. In response the Head of Economic Development stated that the current list of projects would be for the whole of Northern Ireland. Targets for each of the individuals Boroughs had not yet been identified, the programme had just been launched and the Officer believed confirmation would be received as the programme progressed into the next strand. The Head of Economic Development advised that the membership provided benefits to the businesses as they could access mentoring and networking opportunities.
Councillor Smith had reservations regarding the funding allocation, he felt that the output for businesses was relatively low for the amount of money that was to be allocated.
Proposed by Councillor Smith, seconded by the Mayor (Councillor Adair), that the decision be deferred to get further information on the number of businesses taking part in the programme in excess to the numbers outlined in the report.
19
RDC.08.02.18
The Mayor concurred with Councillor Smith stating that he felt that the Council were not getting a good return and achieving good value for money.
In response to a question from Councillor Wilson, the Head of Economic Development explained that previously through the East Border Region membership, the Council had access to apply for European funding however she noted that there were uncertainties surrounding that aspect due to Brexit.
In response to a question from Councillor Cooper, the Head of Economic Development stated that the Council paid a subscription fee to the East Border Region. The Council had the chairmanship this year and would therefore be leading the discussions.
Councillor Walker questioned how long the matter would be deferred for. In response the Head of Economic Development explained that the programme was just getting underway and she would continue to seek clarity on the figures.
Following discussion, Councillor Smith was content to include a deferment for one month within the proposal.
Alderman Irvine questioned if the contribution covered the 3 projects listed in the report. The Head of Economic Development clarified that the contribution would cover any program that came on stream.
Councillor Smart shared members concern and asked that the financial detail and the overall spend be provided.
Councillor Gilmour supported the amendment and stated that the charges of the scheme were not clear and noted that the £20,000 would mean £625 per business. She highlighted that the Committee needed to be make a decision if the contribution benefited the Borough, as currently there was not a good return.
The Mayor questioned the benefits of the East Border Region membership stating that he failed to see those.
The Head of Economic Development explained that the 11 Council’s were members of Interegg and East Border Region and the majority of the programmes provided business support for business development. She stated that historically, the Borough had benefited quite well from the membership.
AGREED, that the decision be deferred until next month to get further information on the number of businesses taking part in the programme in excess to the numbers outlined in the report.
(Alderman McDowell returned to the meeting)
20
RDC.08.02.18
11. ATTENDANCE TO CREATIVE MOMENTUM PROGRAMME CLOSING CONFERENCE IN GALWAY – 1ST MARCH 2018 (Appendix V)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching draft programme and programme activities and participants. The report detailed the undernoted :-
1. Background
Creative Momentum was an EU project funded through the Northern Periphery & Arctic regions programme running from June 2015 until May 2018. The partners in the project include the lead council in the Republic of Ireland which was the W.D.C. (Western Development Commission), partners in Sweden, Finland, Iceland and the Northern Ireland partner which was the SEED group of councils. SEED was made up of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council, Ards and North Down Borough Council and Newry Mourne and Down District Council.
Creative Momentum was a €2m, 3-year (2015-2018) transnational project to support the creative industries sector. It was funded by the EU’s Northern Periphery & Arctic Regions (NPA) Programme.
The Creative Momentum Project targets and supports start-ups and SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) of one or more persons, self-employed freelancers, social enterprises and recent graduates working in the creative industries sector and based in one of the five participating partner regions of the project in Ireland, Northern Ireland, Iceland, Sweden and Finland. Details on the SMEs which had participated on the programme to date, including those from Ards and North Down, could be found in the appendix.
2. Proposal
The lead partner (WDC) was hosting a seminar in Galway on 1 March 2018 to showcase and celebrate the work of the Creative Momentum project. The conference would take place from 1.00pm and finish at 6.00pm. The venue was as yet unconfirmed but would be in Galway City. The conference would include participation from one business from each of the three Northern Ireland Councils involved in the project.
Creative Momentum was inviting one or two members of each of the SEED Councils to attend. It would be anticipated to be one elected representative from each council and, if required, one member of the economic development team in each council to accompany the elected representative.
Bookings had been made at the House Hotel in Galway in anticipation. The cost of the hotel would be covered by the Creative Momentum project that would be for either one or two nights depending on which suited the travelling conditions of those attending
21
RDC.08.02.18
This event would include presentations from Northern Ireland creative businesses that have received support to attend ceramic events in Sweden through council support as well as a relevant discussion for the creative sector.
Speakers had not all been confirmed as yet, but it was expected that one speaker per Council area would contribute to the delivery of the conference programme.
3. Costs
The costs would be fully funded via the Creative Momentum Programme.
RECOMMENDED that the Committee nominates one elected member and one officer to attend the closing conference of the Creative Momentum Programme.
The Chairman advised that he was unable to attend.
Proposed by the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Ferguson, as an amendment, that Council send two Council Officers to attend the closing conference of the Creative Momentum Programme.
AGREED.
12. ARDS AND NORTH DOWN SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMME (ANDSEP) DEC 2015 – DEC 2017 (ED35)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that Ards and North Down Social Entrepreneurship Programme (ANDSEP) aimed to assist individuals and groups to start-up a social business, encourage existing social enterprises to grow, create related employment and maximise a positive impact on society.
In December 2015, following due procurement, Work West was awarded the contract to deliver the Ards and North Down Social Entrepreneurship Programme.
The programme was designed to provide social businesses and aspiring social businesses with a unique opportunity to gain tailored individual assistance and one- to-one mentoring in order to start-up, grow and develop their activities.
Places were limited to 35 participants per year over the three phases of the programme, 15 in phase one,10 in phase two, 10 in phase three.
1. Results and Findings
The following table provided a summary of the key quantitative performance indicators relating to ANDSEP and the results to date against targets. It must be noted that the programme’s targets would be monitored for another 18 months after its official completion on 30th November 2017.
22
RDC.08.02.18
Key Performance Targets Actual Projected Comments Indicator Number of groups 15 Target N/A In Year 2 the ED participating in the Achieved Year section approved a introductory and 1: 15 recruited transfer of 4 places (12 investigatory phase Year 2: 11 days) from recruited (4 Prep Stage to Core places transferred to Core (approved by department) Number of groups 10 Target N/A In Year 2 the ED section participating in the core Achieved Year approved a transfer of capability phase and 1: 10 recruited 4 places (12 days) from completing a full business Year 2: Prep Stage to Core plan. 14 recruited Stage
Number of groups 10 Target Achieved N/A participating in the post Year 1: 10 start strategic mentoring Year 2: 10
Key Performance Targets Actual Projected Comments Indicator Given the long lead For consistency across Group/enterprise annual £180,000 in time required to £622,806 all clients the figure turnover in year 1 set up a new social given is taken from the Sustainable Social enterprise the Business Plan financial Enterprise Ventures majority of the forecasts and excludes established in year 1 ANDSEP the income of existing (total composite value) participants have social enterprises that not yet completed participated on the their first year of programme e.g. Family trading therefore Works, ALT and for consistency the Seacourt Print NI. figures used at this point in time are the figures within the financial section of the business plans prepared as part of the programme.
23
RDC.08.02.18
SEE ABOVE REPEAT, £420,000 Given that none of £908,934 The figure given is taken Year 2 the ANDSEP from the Business Plan participants have financial forecast and completed their excludes the income of second year of existing social trading the only enterprises that figures available at participated on the this point in time programme e.g. Family are the financial Works, ALT and forecasts within the Seacourt Print NI. business plans prepared as part of the programme.
Number of jobs created in 20 12.5 year 1(core) Number of jobs created in 35 19 22 To date 19 jobs have combined years 1 to 2 been created / sustained through programme participation with a further 22 jobs projected over the next 12-18 months. The ED Section and Work West are confident that the target of 35 will be met and exceeded.
Key Performance Targets Actual Projected Comments Indicator 15 Target Achieved: 26 organisations were Number of new 16 trading in December products/services 2017 with an additional developed (core and post 3 projected to start up Start) in year 1 to 2 new ventures in the short-term (<3months) and an additional 3 in a timeframe of <6months and 4 in the long-term (>6months).
24
RDC.08.02.18
Average combined funding £250,000 Target Achieved: Application Most social enterprises levered through existing submissions would include any sources of funding (grants, £579,083 pending: revenue funding in gift aid and loans) for year £95,200 their turnover figure 1 to 2. (not capital) since it reflects funding secured for social enterprise activity. We have kept them separate here for ease of navigation.
1. Impact Measurement
A baseline assessment was conducted with clients (Preparatory Stage) at the outset of the programme and that was revisited at the end of the programme to monitor ‘distance travelled’ in relation to the following 7 indicators:
- awareness & knowledge of the social economy sector in Ards and North Down - confidence in terms of future prospects for growth - understanding of the business skills needed for the development of new social enterprises - knowledge & confidence of leveraging additional resources to help the organisation get started - confidence about starting up a new social enterprise - skill level in terms of what was required to set up and run a social enterprise - competence in terms of attaining financial sustainability
Illustrated in the graph below the evidence from the baseline and end of programme assessments suggests that participants experienced significant and consistent improvements as a result of the programme.
Across all indicators, there was at least a 36% improvement which demonstrated the impact of the programme and how the skill level of the participants had improved particularly in relation to what was required to set up and run a social enterprise.
Following the programme 75% of the group had a raised awareness of the social economy sector in Ards and North Down and more than 47% of the group had increased their knowledge and confidence of leveraging additional resources to help them get started. That reflected the relatively lower baseline score from participants in those issues and the need to provide services within the programme to develop those base needs.
It was encouraging that at the end of the programme the highest ratings were for levels of confidence in starting a social enterprise but also in future prospects for growth suggesting that the programme had been a catalyst for change.
25
RDC.08.02.18
2. Conclusions and Programme Recommendation
The following conclusions could be made after the two years of delivery:
- A key strength of the programme was the flexibility in the delivery format which allowed Work West as Programme Manager on behalf of Ards and North Down Borough Council to tailor the one-to-one mentoring support to the needs of each individual and group and complement that with other support e.g. through the hub in Year 1.
- The workshop format worked very well for networking purposes for the clients and a good rapport and operational linkages were established between clients.
- Workshops were necessary due to the low baseline position of knowledge in key areas required to start and grow a social enterprise.
- The workshop topics / trainers were well received by programme participants and client satisfaction was consistently high across all workshops, illustrated by incredibly high levels of satisfaction overall and particularly with the trainers or workshop leads.
- The Delivery Agent’s unique approach of design thinking ‘Ideation’ sessions has been effective in supporting embryonic social enterprises in AND to begin their journey in developing their idea more fully. The use of the Social Business Model Canvas has also contributed to this by providing a simple starting point for early stage enterprises.
26
RDC.08.02.18
- Another key strength of the programme was the rolling recruitment process which allowed Work West to continue to be able to accept applications throughout the two-year programme without having to ask applicants to wait until the following phase of delivery.
- A number of the Preparatory Stage clients were at the very early stages of their social enterprise journey and required additional support through the Social Economy Hub in Year 1 which was provided as appropriate. The low base level meant that some would require further support to be able to reach the stage whereby they would be ready for the Core Capability Stage.
RECOMMENDED that the Council:
1. Notes the content of this report
2. Agrees to proceed with a new two-year Social Entrepreneurship Programme for the period 2018-2020, at an estimated cost of £36,000 per annum, as part of its transferring functions, subject to budget estimates.
Proposed by Councillor Woods, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendations be adopted.
Councillor Woods thanked the Officers for the work that had occurred. She had met with people that had benefited from the programme and remarked on the passion that the participants had displayed
(Councillor Gilmour withdrew from the meeting – 8.36 pm)
In response to a question from Alderman Irvine, the Head of Economic Development stated that overall 40 jobs had been created. She noted social enterprises took a bit longer to create jobs due to the nature of the business.
The Mayor concurred stating that the programme was excellent. He remarked that he recently attended a young enterprise event and stated that the enthusiasm of the young people was great to see.
Alderman McDowell felt it was difficult to understand and appreciate the full benefits of the social enterprise programme and suggested that the participants be invited to make a presentation at a future meeting of the Committee.
(Councillor Gilmour re-entered the meeting – 8.37 pm)
Continuing, Alderman McDowell stated that the programme was unique and important to the Borough.
AGREED, that the recommendations be adopted.
27
RDC.08.02.18
13. PRINCE’S TRUST DEVELOPMENT AWARDS (ED35)
(Councillor Walker declared an interest and withdrew from the meeting – 8.39 pm)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that under the transferring functions budget, the Council had the ability to support vulnerable groups in our society such as young people with no qualification seeking to become economically active and contribute to our community.
The Prince’s Trust Development Award scheme was a unique scheme exclusively provided by The Trust in Northern Ireland, supporting disadvantaged young people to overcome significant barriers within a short space of time.
As a result of an investment of £2,000 from the Council, The Prince’s Trust targeted Development Awards at unemployed or at risk young people aged 16 -25 who lived within the Borough. The aim was to help over 90% of young people who received a Development Award to achieve a positive outcome, progressing into education, training or employment.
In 2017/18 the Development Awards scheme supported 9 disadvantaged young people in Ards and North Down Borough Council area with small grants averaging £200 with a maximum up to £500 to help fund courses, professional fees, equipment needed for a qualification or job, interview clothes, short-term childcare or travel costs essential to help young people develop their skills and qualifications and enhance their ability to gain employment.
Will-it-Work Grants
As part of a package of support to explore enterprise, young people aged between 18 and 30 could explore and test their business ideas, write plans and potentially become self-employed.
A Will-it-Work Grant was a grant of up to £250 that could be used for test trading. The test should be as close as possible to the business model the young person intends to launch.
As a result of an investment of £1,000 for 2017/18 from the Council, the Prince’s Trust targeted Will-it-Work grants at young people from the Council area, aged 18-30 who have completed the 4 day Prince’s Trust Explore Enterprise Programme.
The Will-it-Work grants supported 6 young people in Ards and North Down Borough Council area with a grant of up to £250 to help them test the market as per proposal.
The scheme had been very successful and has met all its target within budget. It was felt that it was a valuable tool for young people to assess their potential and to enter the pre-enterprise pipeline leading to employment or self-employment.
28
RDC.08.02.18
RECOMMENDED that Council notes the report and agrees further support for the Prince’s Trust Development Awards on a similar basis for 2018-19, subject to budget estimates.
Proposed by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Menagh, that the words ‘subject to budget estimates’ be removed from recommendation.
AGREED, that Council notes the report and agrees further support for the Prince’s Trust Development Awards on a similar basis for 2018-19.
(Councillor Walker re-entered the meeting – 8.40 pm)
14. REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT – DECEMBER 2017 (FIN 45)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that the Regeneration and Development Budgetary Control Report covered the 9-month period 1 April to 31 December 2017 and was set out below. The net cost of the services was showing an under spend of £455,189 (14.9%).
Although the Directorate was showing a significant underspend it was important that that was maintained for the rest of this financial year. The Council’s current projected 2017/18 surplus (approx. £658k) was based on the forecast outturns for all Directorates. The importance of having this surplus was outlined at the Special Corporate Services Committee in December as a significant part of it had been allocated to future years to help reduce future rates increases (additional MRP holiday). If the Council’s 2017/18 surplus was significantly lower it would have to reduce the amount set aside for future years which would have an adverse effect on rates increases for those years.
Explanation of Variance
In addition, a Budgetary Control Report by Income and Expenditure for Regeneration and Development is, also, shown on page 3 which analysed the overall favourable variance (£455,189) by expenditure (£355,855 favourable) and income (£99,333 favourable).
Regeneration & Development
Expenditure - £355.9k (10.3%) better than budget to date. The favourable variance was mainly made up of the following: -
1. RDP HQ - £44.1k favourable as a result of a vacant post (£13.5k) and consultancy (£28.0k). The 2017/18 budget included consultancy for a feasibility study for Exploris Phase 2. That would not be undertaken this year and was now budgeted for 2018/19. 2. Regeneration - £118.3k favourable. The favourable variance was explained by-
29
RDC.08.02.18
a. Payroll £81.7k favourable due to vacancies in Urban Development (£20.8k), Rural Development (£20.8k) and Craft Development (£28.5k). The Rural Development post was filled in late November. b. Masterplan Projects were £20.0k under budget to date. That would be underspent this year as work on the Bangor Coastal Masterplan was expected to commence in 2018/19. c. Chamber of Trade activity was currently £14.3k under budget. 3. Economic Development - £31.2k favourable. That favourable variance was explained by: - a. Payroll £38.0k favourable. There were 2 vacant posts within Economic Development. One was expected to be filled in January 2018 with the other not expected to be filled in this financial year. 4. Tourism - £162.2k favourable. That favourable variance was explained by: - a. Payroll £143.9k favourable. A number of vacant posts in Events and Tourism Development were in the process of being filled. b. Events such as the Comber Earlies Food Festival (£5.1k), Summer Entertainment (£5.5k), Easter (£8.8k) and Seafood Festival (£5.4k) are currently £24.8k under budget. c. Donaghadee Lights Up was currently £13.3k over budget due to additional Health & Safety requirements which weren’t budgeted for.
Income - £99.3k (24.3%) better than budget to date. The favourable variance was mainly made up of the following: - 5. Regeneration - £42.9k favourable. That was mainly due to: - a. Revitalisation grants were £44.7k favourable as those were in respect of the 2016/17 year and, as the programme ended in 2016/17, there was no income budget for this year. 6. Economic Development - £41.9k favourable. That was made up of: - a. Signal Centre £15.9k better than budget to date. b. Refund from European Edge Cities Network £11.2k. c. Exploris income was £6.7k better than budget. That was due to the Council’s profit share for 2016/17 being £6.7k higher than the estimated amount used when finalising the Council’s 2016/17 accounts. That difference had to accounted for in this financial year so was showing a favourable variance. d. Other small favourable income variances on Workshops (£2.2k), Innovative Development Project (£1.1k) and DETI Transferred Functions (£2.4k). 7. Tourism - £14.6k favourable. a. Income from a range of Council events was currently £8.5k better than budget. b. Cockle Row income was £5.5k better than budget to date. That was mainly due to a £4k contribution from the Ulster Scots Agency towards seasonal entertainment costs.
30
RDC.08.02.18
BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Directorate and Service
Period 9 - December 2017
Note Year to Date Year to Date Variance Annual Variance Actual Budget Budget £ £ £ £ %
Regen & Development
300 Regen, Dev & Planning HQ 91,303 135,400 (44,097) 213,300 32.6 310 Regeneration 500,112 661,300 (161,188) 1,023,200 24.4 320 Economic Development 764,426 837,500 (73,074) 1,145,600 8.7 340 Tourism 1,237,771 1,414,600 (176,829) 1,786,700 12.5
Totals 2,593,611 3,048,800 (455,189) 4,168,800 14.9
BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Income and Expenditure
Period 9 - December 2017
Expenditure Income Note Actual Budget Variance Actual Budget Variance £ £ £
Regen & Development
300 Regen, Dev & Planning HQ 91,303 135,400 (44,097) - - - 310 Regeneration 693,670 812,000 (118,330) (193,557) (150,700) (42,857) 320 Economic Development 1,005,296 1,036,500 (31,204) (240,871) (199,000) (41,871) 340 Tourism 1,311,576 1,473,800 (162,224) (73,805) (59,200) (14,605)
Totals 3,101,845 3,457,700 (355,855) (508,233) (408,900) (99,333)
RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes this report.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the recommendation be adopted.
15. EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND (EMFF) 2014- 2020 – FISHERIES LOCAL ACTION GROUP (FLAG) – SEAFLAG (FILE ED38) (Appendix VI)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching NI FLAG Strategy 2018-2020. The report detailed that the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) had recently approved the attached NI FLAG Strategy 2018-2020. The purpose of the document was to set out how €2.73 million (approx. £2.3 million) of funding would be allocated to the local fishing dependent communities.
31
RDC.08.02.18
It was expected that Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, as the lead administrator, would have programme specific staff in post within the next six weeks. In addition, the first set of pre-funding workshops would be held in March / April and potential applicants would then have an opportunity to submit an Expression of Interest application, prior to the official opening of the first call for applications in May.
In preparation for the application process, an internal cross departmental working group would be established to identify potential projects to be taken forward.
In November 2017, the Council nominated Alderman Carson to represented Ards and North Down Borough Council on the SEAFLAG Board. Alderman Carson had been recently elected as the Chairperson of the Board.
RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the above.
Proposed by the Mayor (Councillor Adair), seconded by Alderman Irvine, as an amendment, that this Council tasks Officers to prepare a report with a view to seek funding for projects under EMFF Flag Funding.
The Mayor expressed concerns that Portavogie had missed out on the funding in the past whilst other Boroughs had benefited well from the fund. He stated that he would like to see the Borough get its fair share of the fund and therefore would like to see a further report being brought to the Committee.
The Head of Regeneration stated that it would be his intention to bring a report to a future Committee once more information was received. The Department was yet to issue guidance on the criteria.
Councillor Smart paid tribute to the work of Alderman Carson for his work through representation on the SEAFLAG Board. He stated that he would like to see preliminary work occurring to have the projects shovel ready for the funds being released. Councillor Smart noted that the SEAFLAG area was defined as a 7-mile radius and that was quite an area which could benefit from the fund.
AGREED, that this Council tasks Officers to prepare a report with a view to seeking funding for projects under EMFF Flag Funding.
16. VILLAGE RENEWAL – RDP CAPITAL APPLICATION (FILE 160135)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that as Members would be aware, the Rural Development Programme provided funding support for village renewal through needs identified within integrated village plans. A village plan was a working document which had the support of the community and provided a needs-based strategic framework to co-ordinate specific development actions.
Following on from the Village Action Plan prioritisation process which took place at the end of 2016, meetings to discuss Council led projects with village groups were
32
RDC.08.02.18 ongoing to identify suitable projects to meet the Rural Development Programme’s eligibility criteria. The following projects had been identified, in consultation with the local community groups and Council officers:
Ballywalter
The development of Ballywalter Harbour
In September 2017 Council approved that Harbour Improvements be undertaken in Ballywalter and that an application for funding to the Rural Development Programme be prepared by officers. Due to the availability of funding for harbours from a separate government department, the emphasis of the funding application to the Rural Development Programme had changed and proposes to focus on an application for low level lighting of the promenade to include the play ship, access to the beach from the car park, additional seating and Aire de Service points.
In addition, it was proposed to carry out a technical study on the Lime Kilns. The Lime Kilns in Ballywalter ceased to operate commercially in the 1930s. The structure was currently underutilised and the Community had expressed a wish that it be restored to become a heritage feature in the Village. In addition to the benefits that would have on the village, there was potential to attract tourists and schools. The initial stage of that project was to appoint a consultant to develop a study into the Lime Kilns, which would seek to explore their potential restoration from a tourism, heritage and educational perspective and to provide options for the restoration works and the marketing of the site, which would be used as a business case to secure funding as and when it becomes available.
Therefore, it was now possible to implement a larger project incorporating the harbour and promenade which would bring about wider benefits for the long-term regeneration of Ballywalter Village. Officers recently met with seven members of the local Community group, where the majority present were in favour of the project seeing the positive benefits this could bring to local residents and the potential to increase the number of visitors to the area.
It was estimated that those works would cost up to £100,000, however, that may change on the completion of full technical drawings and procurement. There was a potential to obtain funding of at least £50,000 from the Village Renewal Scheme.
Cloughey
The development of Warren Carpark
Cloughey’s Village Plan identified improvement works to Warren Car Park. From initial discussions with community representatives, it was felt that those improvements were still a priority project for the Village. However, that would be discussed in more detail as part of the review and update of their Village Plan. In the interim, officers would further investigate development options in terms of softening the landscape of the carpark and the associated costs.
33
RDC.08.02.18
It was estimated that those works would cost up to £100,000, however, that may change on the completion of full technical drawings and procurement. There was a potential to obtain funding of at least £50,000 from the Village Renewal Scheme.
Groomsport
Environmental Improvement Project
As part of the review and updating of Groomsport’s Village Plan, an Environmental Improvement Scheme had been identified, which contributed to the revitalisation of Groomsport Seafront, including new planters and the resurfacing of pathway from the Main Street to the beach. Further consultation was required with community representatives and relevant Council departments to finalise the exact details of the scheme.
The project would enhance the existing walkways, increasing accessibility for existing users and visitors. It was felt that it was important to build on the success of Ulster in Bloom and Best Kept Village by using this funding opportunity to address the findings identified in these reports.
It was estimated that the Environmental Improvement Scheme would cost up to £50,000, however that may change on the completion of full technical drawings and procurement. There was a potential to obtain a minimum of £37,500 from the Village Renewal Scheme.
Carrowdore
Environmental Improvement Project – Technical Design
It was highlighted as priority in the review and updating of Carrowdore’s Village Plan that the village required an environmental improvement scheme to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the village and create a village heart. The proposed scheme would include the provision of street furniture, landscaping and picnic facilities.
It was estimated that the technical design phase of the project would cost up to £6,665, subject to a quotation exercise. There was a potential to obtain £5,000 from the Village Renewal Scheme and an indicative match funding requirement of £1,665 from Council.
Conclusion
Subject to Council approval, officers would liaise with community representatives in Ballywalter, Cloughey, Groomsport and Carrowdore to ensure that the proposed projects reflect priorities as per their Village Plans.
However, due to the time constraints and the requirement to put in place funding pre- requisites linked to the Rural Development Programme (Village Renewal Scheme), officers request approval to progress the development of these projects to full application stage (as outlined above) to secure the funding for the benefit of the rural villages in the Borough.
34
RDC.08.02.18
It was estimated that an indicative match funding requirement of circa £110K would be required from the Council to implement the proposed projects. A budget provision for that was included in the Council’s Capital Plan.
A further report would be presented in due course.
RECOMMENDED that the Council agrees the above.
Proposed by the Mayor (Councillor Adair), seconded by Councillor Ferguson, that the recommendation be adopted.
The Mayor welcomed the report and commended the Officers for the work involved. He looked forward to work occurring to regenerate Ballywalter promenade and hoped the funding could be obtained. The Mayor also referred to the villages of Cloughey, Groomsport and Carrowdore which were villages that were often forgot about. He stated that Carrowdore was fast moving in terms of housing development and stated that village renewal was vital for the transformation of Carrowdore. The Mayor looked forward to the next report.
Councillor Ferguson welcomed the report and the work that was occurring in Carrowdore. Being a resident in the area, she referred to the lack of amenities in the village and was disappointed to note the provision of a Chemist had been unsuccessful.
Councillor Walker also welcomed the report and reminded the Committee that the village of Groomsport should not be forgotten about.
AGREED, that the recommendation be adopted.
17. IMPROVEMENTS TO BALLYHOLME BEACH (FILE REG37) (Appendix VII)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching proposed scheme and costings. The report detailed that following a Notice of Motion, it was agreed to request a report on the upgrading of the beach, promenade and facilities at Ballyholme. Officers in the Assets and Property Services Section had reviewed the area and considered the comments made by the elected members at the Regeneration and Development Committee. They had subsequently produced a map showing the areas and what could be done at each. If all that work was to be undertaken a budget, circa £280K, would be required.
Currently no capital budget request had been made for that area as part of the rate setting exercise. However, as part of the new Planned Maintenance Schedule minor works to the Ballyholme Beach location would be undertaken in the next financial year.
As members would be aware the Council had agreed, subject to budget setting, to undertake a Coastal Masterplan for Bangor. That would be a comprehensive review
35
RDC.08.02.18 of the area from Pickie Park to Ballymacormick Point. Substantial capital investment would be required to deliver the out workings of the Plan and a provision had been included in the Council’s Capital Plan. If that proposal proceeded as planned, it was envisaged that works to the Ballyholme Beach area would commence in the financial year 2019 to 2020.
RECOMMENDED that the Council does not proceed with the works to the Ballyholme Beach area at present, but waits until the Coastal Masterplan is completed and the agreed works programmed into the overall schedule.
Proposed by Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Smith, that the recommendation be adopted.
Alderman Irvine asked if works would be communicated via the steering group. In response the Head of Regeneration confirmed that would occur and that the reconstituted Bangor Town Steering Group would operate as a sounding board and updates would be brought through the Committee.
Councillor Gilmour highlighted the need for the report to feed into the masterplan. She noted that the water quality had proven problematic in the past and if the water quality was not rectified works to the pontoon and the provision of a lifeguard hut would be a waste.
The Head of Regeneration explained that the Consultants would look at all the issues when considering the Coastal Masterplan and the results would be brought back to Committee.
Councillor Gilmour stated that there were smaller issues such as the water quality and maintenance issues which could be addressed through the Environment Committee whilst the masterplan was awaited.
AGREED, that the recommendation be adopted.
18. CITY DEAL (FILE RDP22) (Appendix VIII)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching Belfast City Region Deal Infrastructure Strategy. The report detailed that Council approved Ards and North Down Borough Council’s participation in the development of the Belfast City Region Growth Deal in August 2017. Work continued apace across a number of work streams, under the key priority areas of Infrastructure, Innovation and Employability and Skills including:
Employability and Skills. The University of Ulster was currently completing the Skills Barometer for the Region. The Colleges, including SERC, were currently developing an Employability and skills paper for consideration.
Industrial Strategic Framework. That would provide a strategic framework which supports the delivery of the
36
RDC.08.02.18
UK and NI Industrial Strategies at a Belfast City Region level and underpins the development of the Belfast City Region Deal. Council’s were collectively developing the Framework with the Draft Strategic Framework planned for end February 2018.
Digital Infrastructure Strategy. Digital infrastructure and connectivity had been agreed as a key priority area within the Belfast City Region Deal. Future Cities Catapult had been engaged to support the development of a Digital Infrastructure Strategy for the Region, details on that were included in Appendix I. Draft Strategy planned for end of March 2018.
Infrastructure Business Case. KPMG were currently working with Council’s to develop an agreed refined ‘Medium List’ of projects which would be used as the basis for further consultation and negotiation with UK Government and Northern Ireland Civil Service. That would be undertaken by end April 2018.
The Qualitative Impact Assessment would assess potential projects against: Strategic Sectoral Alignment – demonstrates how the project supports one of the priority growth sectors identified within the Belfast Region Industrial Strategic Framework Project Impact – demonstrated how the project supports employment opportunities and/or productivity. State of Readiness – projects should be capable of being delivered within a 10 year timescale. A high level funding plan was also required.
As agreed by Council in November 2017, Ards and North Down projects currently being submitted to KPMG include:
Whitespots Regional Park, including WWI legacy and Mining Heritage.
37
RDC.08.02.18
Bangor Waterfront Masterplan (Pickie to Ballyholme with a major tourist attraction) Business Enterprise Zone/Park Extension of the Belfast Rapid Transport to Newtownards. That would be further discussed with DfI. If agreed that may become a regional bid across four Council’s. Broadband connectivity. That formed part of the Digital Strategy as outlined above.
The initial medium list included a possible station halt at Belfast City Airport and improvements to the Ards Peninsula Coastal Road. Those were currently being discussed with DfI and Translink and may form part of the regional city bid and/or other possible funding streams.
The next steps in securing the Belfast Region City Deal included:
All council partners had agreed to the principle that any required studies or reports to progress the Belfast City Region Deal would be jointly commissioned, with costs being apportioned on the basis of each council’s estimated penny product (EPP). That equated to c12% for AND Council, with a budget allocated within the 18/19 estimates.
The next Joint Elected Members Engagement Forum was scheduled for Monday 12th February 2019 in Downshire Civic Centre, Downpatrick. Members would receive an update on the progress to date and key milestones and hear from Greater Manchester on how they developed and delivered their City Deal.
RECOMMENDED that Council approves this report.
Proposed by Councillor Smart, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the recommendation be adopted.
38
RDC.08.02.18
(Councillor Smith withdrew from the meeting – 8.54 pm)
Alderman McDowell noted that the Belfast City Region Deal bid was one of the most important bids that the Council would put together. He referred to the list in the report being submitted to KPMG and stated that he would like each of those projects being put forward to be achieved. He highlighted that the proposals were scored on the basis of the economic benefit they provided and that the Government wanted to ensure the successful projects lead to increased taxes and rates. He highlighted the importance of the Council being prepared the best it could and the Councillors being ambassadors for the projects. Furthermore, there was a need to fully understand how the bid would be judged and marked.
The Chairman recognised that the developments of the City Deal were progressing quickly however reassured the Committee that Officers were dedicated to monitoring the progress.
The Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stated that the City Region Deal was an exciting opportunity for the Council. Officers were working closely with KPMG on the quality impact assessment and gathering the evidence required on the proposed projects for the Borough. It was hoped that the Council’s projects would be high up the list as they have significant potential to possible drive jobs and growth. KPMG wished to get the list down to 25. The Director reassured the Committee that Officers were working hard and a standing item would be placed on the Regeneration and Development Committee agenda each month to provide Members with an update.
AGREED, that the recommendation be adopted.
19. BOMBARDIER NOTICE OF MOTION UPDATE (FILE NOM 183) (Appendix IX)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching response of letters re Bombardier. The report detailed Following two Notice of Motions brought by Councillor Menagh and Alderman McDowell/Councillor Douglas in October 2017, Council agreed to write to the appropriate Trade Unions and relevant Government departments expressing its outrage at the rulings of US Commerce Independent Trade Commission against Bombardier and urging them to demonstrate continued commitment to the ongoing attempts to resolve contractual disputes and unfair tariffs imposed on Bombardier. The Council wrote to the relevant parties registering deep concern regarding the ruling by US Department of Commerce to impose a levy of up to 300% on the C Series jets by Bombardier and requested that all efforts were made to engage with relevant officials to convince Boeing to withdraw the trade dispute filed with the US International Trade Commission. The US Government was asked to reject unjustified import tariffs.
As members would be aware, the US International Trade Commission, on Friday 26 January 2018, ruled against Boeing in their dispute with Bombardier. Everyone had welcomed the ruling.
39
RDC.08.02.18
RECOMMENDED that the report is noted.
Proposed by Councillor Menagh, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the recommendation be adopted.
Councillor Menagh and Councillor Cooper welcomed the satisfactory outcome for Bombardier which was fantastic news.
Alderman McDowell echoed those comments however urged vigilance.
AGREED, that the recommendation be adopted.
20. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MUIR AND ALDERMAN MCDOWELL
This Council notes the substantial opportunities available in light of the planned closure of Kinnegar Logistics Base and agrees that serious consideration should be given to seeking funding for future development as part of the Growth Deal for Belfast City Region, due by September 2018. Furthermore, Council requests officers promptly bring back a report highlighting the process for developing a mixed use Masterplan for the site, which will involve close engagement with local residents, businesses and other key stakeholders, and will produce costed options for regeneration, including transport, public realm and other supporting infrastructure.
Councillor Muir commenced by outlining the background of the site which was previously used as sand dunes and the Royal Belfast Golf Club course. The site joined the Belfast City Council boundary, was a 54 acres site and paid significant rates per annum. Councillor Muir explained that the Kinnegar Logistics Base would be vacated in 2022 and the Military Units at the site would be reprovided for. A number of the units would move to Palace Barracks and therefore remain in the constituency. The area previously employed up to 1,000 civilian staff and there was significant housing on the site. Councillor Muir recognised a full examination of the site was required. There was a possibility of contaminated land, the sewage works were adjacent to the site which would affect where development occurred.
Councillor Muir highlighted the potential that the land held, a fantastic opportunity for job creation and stated that there were other prospects if the infrastructure was right and planning commenced now. He referred to the rental income and highlighted as an example that the Pavilions Office Park raised £60,770 p/a in rates revenue. Councillor Muir felt that the Council could not let the area become like other vacated Army bases with development slow and the potential not fully exploited. He referred to Ballykelly's Shackleton Barracks and Fort George Army base in Derry~Londonderry as examples of that.
In progressing the matter, Councillor Muir stated that it was vital that the Council work with the local community, their views needed to be heard and it was vital infrastructure improvements enacted with development were undertaken with minimal disturbance in light of sensitive ground conditions which existed. Furthermore, there was an opportunity to open the road to the Harbour Estate
40
RDC.08.02.18 however that needed to be considered and explored in consultation. Councillor Muir stated that the Council could not afford to wait for the Local Development Plan as that presented elongated timescales and potential legal challenges, there was need to plan and prepare now and ensure the site developed in a planned manner with plans then reflected the Local Development Plan.
The area of land was ideal for the City Deal, linking in with both neighbouring areas with mutual interests. Councillor Muir believed the area of land presented a prime example of a project which could demonstrate the Council delivering and spearheading planned development, making the ‘Integrated Tourism, Regeneration and Economic Development Strategy’ real. Councillor Muir felt that perhaps that could present the biggest opportunity in the lifetime of the new Council in terms of jobs creation and economic growth at a specific site in the Borough.
Alderman McDowell stated that the base held exciting potential for jobs and economic growth. He did not want to see the land go into decay and he wished for the Council to act as catalyst and lead the process, creating jobs for the local area. The location was key with opportunities available for mixed development, residential, warehousing, office space and creative industries. Alderman McDowell felt the base should be considered as a proposal as part of the Belfast City Region Deal, it held jobs potential, rateable value and was an ideal opportunity to create economic growth. Alderman McDowell asked that Officers research the potential, he felt the site needed to be a mixed development however the experts would help and guide the Council on what was best suited for the area. He felt if the Council did not take the lead and act in the interests of the ratepayers the land would be lost to developers. Alderman McDowell felt the Council should at least review and consider the base and urged all Members to support the fantastic opportunity.
Councillor Gilmour stated that she would be sad to see the closure, as the base was a central part of Holywood. However, she believed the Notice of Motion to be an excellent opportunity and timely for the Belfast City Region deal. She stated that she fully supported the development and reconfiguration of the land however the only judgement she held was that the project was not at the shovel ready stage. She also highlighted that she had reported the access issue during the heavy rainfall and the access road to the Harbour Estate had been opened during that time.
Councillor Woods enquired if discussions had occurred with the MOD in respect of the date of sale vs the date of closure. She stressed the importance of a public meeting being held to ensure wide consultation occurred on the issue.
In conclusion, Councillor Muir echoed the comments of Alderman McDowell, he felt that it should be development of mixed uses however would await guidance and the outcome of consultation. Councillor Muir highlighted the return potential not just in rates income but jobs, economic growth and homes. He agreed with Councillor Woods, that there was a need for consultation with local residents and businesses. Councillor Muir was of the understanding that the closure was confirmed for 2022.
AGREED, that the Notice of Motion be adopted.
41
RDC.08.02.18
21. ANY OTHER NOTIFIED BUSINESS
(i) Queen’s Parade
Councillor Wilson questioned if there was an update on Queen’s Parade. He was of the view that an update was to be forthcoming each month. In response the Director stated that she would bring regular updates to the Committee and there was a project meeting scheduled for the following day.
NOTED.
TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated at 9.17 pm.
Circulated for information:
(i) NILGA Event – Driving Government Locally Summit
42
Unclassified
ITEM 8.3.1
Ards and North Down Borough Council
Report Classification Unclassified
Council/Committee Council
Date of Meeting 28 February 2018
Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning
Responsible Head of Temporary Head of Tourism Service
Date of Report 16 February 2018
File Reference TO/EV25
Legislation
Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:
Subject Bid for Pipeband Championships 2018
Attachments
The Regeneration and Development Committee considered a bid from Council to secure the Pipeband Championships for Bangor in May 2018. Committee agreed to defer the RSPBANI bid until full Council on 28th February, to allow time for Officers to arrange a meeting between Newtownards DEA Elected Members and RSPBANI in an effort to better understand the issues in having the championships in Newtownards and what solutions may exist and report back to Council in February.
A site visit took place on the 15th February at Londonderry Park. RSPBANI explained there are significant logistical challenges around using the venue, particularly around the site set up and car parking. Their preferred option for 2018 is Bangor. Incidentally Londonderry Park isn’t available in May as the venue is playing host to a major football championship. However, after discussions with Members the RSPBANI agreed to re-visit the venue for the 2019 event. They further agreed to bring back a fully costed assessment to Council over the next few months in terms of the viability of hosting the event in Newtownards in 2019.
Page 1 of 2
Unclassified
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approves a bid to RSPBANI to host the Championships on Saturday 12 May 2018 at Castle Park, Bangor.
Page 2 of 2
ITEM 8.4
ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL
A meeting of the Corporate Services Committee was held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Bangor, on Tuesday, 13 February 2018 at 7.35 pm.
PRESENT:
In the Chair: Alderman Girvan
Aldermen: Carson Graham Keery (7.36pm)
Councillors: Barry Muir Brooks McIlveen Chambers Smart Gilmour Smith Kennedy
Officers: Director of Organisational Development and Administration (W Monson), Interim Director of Finance and Performance (J Pentland), Head of Human Resources (R McCullough), Community Planning Manager (P Mackey) and Democratic Services Officer (P Foster)
Also in Attendance: Alderman Irvine Councillors Douglas and Wilson
1. APOLOGIES
No apologies for inability to attend had been received.
NOTED.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Chairman (Alderman Girvan) asked for any Declarations of Interest.
Councillor Barry declared in interest in Item 9 – Sustainable NI 2018/19 Letter and Work Plan.
NOTED.
3. BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT – DECEMBER 2017 (FILE FIN45)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 26 January 2018 from the Interim Director of Finance and Performance detailing that this Budgetary Control Report covered the 9-month period 1 April to 31 December 2017 and the Revenue CS.13.02.18 PM
Budgetary Control Report by Directorate was set out on page 10. The Net Cost of Services for the period was £28.69m against a budget of £29.22m, hence, showing an under spend of £534,629 (1.8%) (box C).
Income from District Rates less charges for Capital Financing was £30.19m versus a budget of £30.09m representing £102,197 (box D) of favourable variances on the same. Consequently, this results in the Council having a full surplus at the end of December of £1,499,400 (box A) compared with a budgeted surplus for the same period of £862,575 (box B) resulting in a favourable variance on expected surplus of £636,825 (box E).
Explanation of Variance
A Budgetary Control Report by Income and Expenditure by Directorate was shown on page 11 which analysed the overall favourable variance (£636,825 – box E on page 9) as expenditure (£1,210,964 favourable – box F) and income (£574,139 adverse – box G). However, if the net nil distorting effect on income and expenditure of Peace IV grants (see Community & Wellbeing 3d and 6b) was removed then the variance for expenditure was £802,064 favourable and income £165,239 adverse.
COMMUNITY & WELLBEING
Expenditure - £734.0k (7.7%) better than budget to date. This favourable variance was mainly made up of the following: - 1. Community & Wellbeing HQ - £21.3k adverse. Consultancy costs £9.7k adverse (V4 consultancy in connection with the potential outsourcing of the remainder of Leisure Services. This was not budgeted for). Legal fees £11.4k adverse in respect of Holywood Rugby Club (legacy issue – not budgeted for). 2. Environmental Health - £5.2k adverse. a. Payroll £20.2k adverse mainly due to final payments made to an employee who retired on ill health grounds at the end of April. b. Mileage was £5.5k favourable year to date. c. Samples analysis was currently £11.7k favourable to date though that was expected to come back into line with budget as the year progresses. 3. Community & Culture - £556.8k favourable (£147.9k favourable after allowing for the net nil distorting effect on income and expenditure of Peace IV grants). a. Payroll £93.6k favourable mainly due to underspends in Community Development (£46.8k), Good Relations (£16.5k), Peace IV (£13.7k) and Arts Development (£7.3k). Vacant posts in those services were to be filled as the year progresses. b. Community Partnership was £17.5k under budget but that was offset by a similar adverse variance on income – see 6a below.
2
CS.13.02.18 PM
c. Community Activity & Summer Programmes running costs were £21.9k under budget to date. d. Peace IV grant payments were £408.9k under budget to date but this was offset by a similar adverse variance on income – see 6b below. 4. Leisure & Amenities - £203.6k favourable. a. Payroll £11.3k favourable which was mainly due to underspends in Parks and Cemeteries (£95.5k), Community Halls/Centres (£27.9k) and Leisure Admin (£27.1k) with an overspend in Leisure (£139.4k). The overspend in Leisure was mainly in Ards LC (£117.5k), Comber LC (£19.7k) and Londonderry Park (£20.3k) offset by favourable variances on Sports Development (£17.3k). The overspends in Leisure had been caused by additional overtime, casuals and agency to cover staff shortages and essential shifts. b. Ards LC (£61.0k), Comber LC (£5.0k), (Portaferry SC (£9.8k) and Londonderry Park (£16.8k) running costs (excluding payroll) were £92.6k under budget to date. c. Community Halls/Centres running costs (excluding payroll) were £21.8k under budget to date. d. Parks and Cemeteries running costs (excluding payroll) were £17.5k adverse to date. e. There were a number of small favourable variances to date for other Leisure services such as Ards Half Marathon £3.7k, 10k Road Race £13.8k (offset by similar reduction in income – see 5d below), Sports Pavilions £16.3k, Sports & Football Development £5.7k, Bangor Sportsplex £5.9k, Queens Hall £7.9k and Countryside Management £8.1k. Income - £540.3k (16.8%) worse than budget to date. This adverse variance was mainly made up of the following: - 5. Leisure & Amenities - £87.2k adverse. a. Ards LC £85.4k adverse (mainly momentum fitness and café and vending); Comber LC £49.0k adverse (mainly momentum fitness, tennis and membership), Portaferry Sports Centre £10.1k favourable and Londonderry Park £14.2k favourable. Fitness membership direct debits were up by over 300 members across the 3 Centres. This increase was secured from the beginning of August until the end of December and completely reversed the previous trend and market norms for that time of year. It was anticipated that with the continued recruitment and restructure drive this exceptional positive trend would continue in 2018. With an average income of approximately £24 (exc. VAT) per person per month this would result in a potential extra £85k of income over a 12- month period. b. Community Halls/Centres income was £17.5k better than budget to date.
3
CS.13.02.18 PM
c. Cemeteries income was £26.1k better than budget to date. d. Bangor 10k Road Race income was £12.5k adverse to date – offset by similar reduction in expenditure (see 4e above). e. Football Development income was currently £6.6k adverse but that was expected to reduce as the year progressed. 6. Community and Culture - £424.4k adverse (£15.5k adverse after allowing for the net nil distorting effect on income and expenditure of Peace IV grants). a. Community Partnership was £17.5k adverse but that was offset by a similar favourable variance on expenditure – see 3b above. b. Peace IV grant income was £408.9k adverse but that had been offset by a similar favourable variance on project spend – see 3d above. c. Arts Summer Programme was £6.4k better than budget to date. 7. Environmental Health - £28.8k adverse. a. Affordable Warmth grant was £26.8k less than budgeted. Associated expenditure was being reduced in line with the grant reduction. There were indications that the grant allocation may increase later this year. ENVIRONMENT
Expenditure - £421.7k (2.6%) worse than budget to date. This adverse variance was mainly made up of the following: - 8. Waste and Cleansing Services - £411.4k adverse. a. A combined summary of the main waste stream variances was set out in the table below.
£’000 Commentary Landfill 461.2 4.9k tonnes more than budget Brown/Green bin (148.7) 2.7k tonnes less than budget waste Blue bin waste (100.1) 2.5k tonnes less than budget
HRC waste 61.1 Higher tonnage than budget Total 273.5
Overall, the main waste stream budgets were showing an adverse variance of £273.5k. b. Payroll costs were £42.2k favourable to date.
c. The route optimisation project was now expected to cost £158.4k across both revenue and capital this year. This project was over budget by £83.4k as set out below:
4
CS.13.02.18 PM
Expenditure Budget Variance £’000 £’000 £’000 Revenue 50.5 - 50.5 Capital 107.9 75.0 Capital Receipts 32.9 158.4 75.0 83.4
The over spend was largely attributable to the purchase of in-cab equipment and additional software. Part of the over spend in revenue could be met from the £30k set aside in the Earmarked Fund from the 2016/17 year-end surplus and the over spend in capital expenditure could be met from use of additional capital receipts. There would, also, be an annual revenue charge for licences and support of £51.8k which would be reflected in future year’s budgets. d. Equipment repairs in the Waste Recycling Centres were £17.3k adverse to date as more repairs had been required to date than expected at the WRC’s.
e. Spend on refuse bins was £49.4k higher than budget to date. There had been high demand from householders in the legacy Ards area to change 140 litre blue bins to 240 litre blue bins. Brown bin spend was higher than budget due to high demand from householders.
f. Spend on replacement HRC skips (£19.0k) was not budgeted for in 2017/18. This would be a recurring spend so a budget had been included for 2018/19.
g. Printing costs £16.7k (recycling information) and advertising costs £10.3k (graphics on bin lorries) were adverse to date.
9. Assets and Property Services - £0.1k favourable. a. Property Operations were £39.1k over budget to date. This was mainly due to: - i. Payroll costs were £36.2k favourable mainly due to vacant posts which were in the process of being filled and tighter control of overtime. ii. Contractor costs were £96.5k over budget to date. There had been repair work carried out in areas such as Ballyhalbert Harbour, Millisle beach Park carpark and Bangor Marina wall which had not been budgeted for but needed to be done. iii. Consultancy services for Cooke Street, Jetty and Ballywalter Harbour were £15.2k under budget to date. b. Technical Services were £76.3k under budget to date. That was mainly due to: -
5
CS.13.02.18 PM
i. Payroll costs were £38.3k favourable mainly due to vacant posts which were in the process of being filled. ii. Utility costs were £16.1k under budget to date. iii. Contractor costs were £39.2k under budget to date. This covered areas such as statutory compliance work, refurbishments, playgrounds and statutory upgrades. iv. Christmas related expenditure was currently £8.9k over budget. v. Security costs at the old Bangor Leisure Centre were £5.8k over budget to date. c. Fleet Management was £39.5k over budget to date. This was mainly due to: - i. Payroll costs were £20.4k favourable mainly due to vacant posts which had now been filled. ii. Vehicle maintenance costs were £45.2k over budget to date. iii. Vehicle licensing costs and protective clothing costs were £12.5k over budget to date.
10. Building Control, Licensing & Neighbourhood Environment - £16.3k adverse. a. Payroll costs were £1.8k over budget year to date. b. Consultancy costs for the Council’s Car Parking Strategy were £15.6k adverse to date as this was not included in the 2017/18 budget. Income - £13.1k (1.2%) better than budget to date. This favourable variance comprised: 11. Waste & Cleansing Services - £101.5k adverse. This was mainly due to trade waste income (£79.9k) and sale of glass income (£24.4k) being worse than budget to date and income from Special Collections being £8.7k better than budget to date. 12. Assets and Property Services - £22.3k favourable. Wind turbine income was £14.5k behind target to date. Income for the old Bangor Leisure Centre was £32.7k favourable due to a rates rebate received from LPS. Property Operations income was £3.6k better than budget to date. 13. Building Control & Licensing income - £92.3k favourable. This was mainly due to Building Control income (£79.5k), Property Certificate income (£11.8k) and fixed penalty fines (£18.6k) being better than budget to date offset by Car Park income (£7.8k) and Licensing income (£13.4k) being worse than budget to date.
REGENERATION, DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING
6
CS.13.02.18 PM
Expenditure - £463.9k (9.6%) better than budget to date. This favourable variance was mainly made up of the following: - 14. RDP HQ - £44.1k favourable as a result of a vacant post (£13.5k) and consultancy (£28.0k). The 2017/18 budget included consultancy for a feasibility study for Exploris Phase 2. This would not be undertaken this year and was now budgeted for 2018/19. 15. Regeneration - £118.3k favourable. This favourable variance was explained by- a. Payroll £81.7k favourable due to vacancies in Urban Development (£20.8k), Rural Development (£20.8k) and Craft Development (£28.5k). The Rural Development post had been filled in late November. b. Masterplan Projects were £20.0k under budget to date. This would be underspent this year as work on the Bangor Coastal Masterplan was expected to commence in 2018/19. c. Chamber of Trade activity was currently £14.3k under budget. 16. Economic Development - £31.2k favourable. This favourable variance was explained by: - a. Payroll £38.0k favourable. There were two vacant posts within Economic Development. One was expected to be filled in January 2018 with the other not expected to be filled in this financial year. b. Rural Development Programme running costs were £6.3k under budget to date – see 22b below. 17. Planning - £108.0k favourable. a. Payroll £124.6k favourable due to vacancies. The 2017/18 budget included an allowance for nine new posts but delays in recruitment meant that the final five posts had only filled in December. b. Legal fees were £39.6k over budget to date. There were a number of ongoing complex enforcement cases which had required specialist legal advice. c. There were underspends to date on hired services (£14.0k) due to a delay in commencing tree work (this was expected to be completed by the end of March 2018) and rent (£14.0k). 18. Tourism - £162.2k favourable. This favourable variance was explained by: - a. Payroll £143.9k favourable. A number of vacant posts in Events and Tourism Development were in the process of being filled. b. Events such as the Comber Earlies Food Festival (£5.1k), Summer Entertainment (£5.5k), Easter (£8.8k) and Seafood Festival (£5.4k) are currently £24.8k under budget. c. Donaghadee Lights Up was currently £13.3k over budget due to additional Health & Safety requirements which had not been budgeted for.
7
CS.13.02.18 PM
Income - £2.9k (0.2%) worse than budget to date. This adverse variance was mainly made up of the following: - 19. Regeneration - £42.9k favourable. This was mainly due to: - a. Revitalisation grants were £44.7k favourable as these were in respect of the 2016/17 year and, as the programme ended in 2016/17, there was no income budget for this year. 20. Economic Development - £41.9k favourable. This was made up of: - a. Signal Centre £15.9k better than budget to date. b. Refund from European Edge Cities Network £11.2k. c. Exploris income was £6.7k better than budget. This was due to the Council’s profit share for 2016/17 being £6.7k higher than the estimated amount used when finalising the Council’s 2016/17 accounts. This difference had to accounted for in this financial year so was showing a favourable variance. d. Other small favourable income variances on Workshops (£2.2k), Innovative Development Project (£1.1k) and DETI Transferred Functions (£2.4k). 21. Planning income - £102.2k adverse a. Planning application income was £102.1k worse than budget to date. The 2017/18 income budget anticipated significant planning application fees in respect of the Queens Parade project. This was unlikely to occur in this financial year so income may be around £100k behind target by the end of the year. 22. Tourism - £14.6k favourable. a. Income from a range of Council events was currently £8.5k better than budget. b. Cockle Row income was £5.5k better than budget to date. This was mainly due to a £4k contribution from the Ulster Scots Agency towards seasonal entertainment costs. FINANCE & PERFORMANCE
Expenditure - £200.5k (7.3%) better than budget to date.
23. Payroll costs were £184.4k lower than budget to date. NILGOSC additional capital contributions were £47.0k less than budget. Corporate Management is £69.1k better than budget (2 posts budgeted not filled yet) and Finance was £48.4k under budget to date due to a vacant post.
ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
Expenditure - £57.2k (1.7%) better than budget to date. This favourable variance was mainly made up of the following: -
8
CS.13.02.18 PM
24. HR & OD - £17.1k adverse. This was mainly explained by: - a. Payroll being £9.2k favourable. A vacancy within Employee Relations was filled in late May. b. Legal costs were £39.0k over budget. Those were in respect of personnel matters. c. Corporate Training was currently £20.3k under budget but it was expected that the budget would be fully utilised by the end of the financial year. 25. Administration & Customer Services - £75.4k favourable which mainly consisted of: - a. Payroll was £47.7k favourable due to vacancies which were to be filled as the year progressed. b. Customer Services running costs were £22.4k better than budget to date mainly due to stationary spend being less than expected to date. Income - £4.1k (1.6%) better than budget to date. NON-SERVICE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
Expenditure - £150.3k (3.0%) better than budget to date.
26. This favourable variance was mainly due to interest payable being under budget (£131.3k) as a result of the Council not having incurred as much new borrowing as expected this year to date to finance capital projects. Income - £48.1k (0.1%) worse than budget to date.
27. The Council had been advised by LPS that, based on Quarter 3 information, the 2017/18 rates outturn may result in a clawback of £53.3k. This was a decrease of £132.3k on the Quarter 2 forecast which indicated a positive finalisation of £79k. The graph on page 9 illustrated the trend of previous years APP estimates and finalisations which showed that downturns in Quarter 3 had been followed by healthy increases in Quarter 4 in the last 2 financial years. Following discussions with LPS, Officers had forecast the 17/18 finalisation would be a positive settlement of around £275k (though this report only reflected the Quarter 3 position). This was discussed at January’s Special Corporate Services Committee.
In addition, the Council’s estimated Quarter 3 2017/18 De-Rating Grant finalisation was indicating a positive finalisation of £5.7k for 2017/18 (Q2 indicated a clawback of £39.9k so an improvement of £45.6k).
9
CS.13.02.18 PM
1000
800 790 685 600 528 2015/16
400 386 406 2016/17 £'000 275 (forecast) 2017/18 241 200 195 195
79 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 -53 Q4 -144 -200
10
CS.13.02.18 PM
BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Directorate and Service
Period 9 - December 2017
Note Year to Date Year to Date Variance Annual Variance Actual Budget Budget £ £ £ £ %
Community & Wellbeing
100 Community & Wellbeing HQ 169,478 148,200 21,278 200,300 14.4 110 Environmental Health 1,161,724 1,127,800 33,924 1,489,000 3.0 120 Community and Culture 1,296,213 1,428,600 (132,387) 1,785,100 9.3 130 Leisure and Amenities 3,540,425 3,656,900 (116,475) 5,036,500 3.2
Totals 6,167,840 6,361,500 (193,660) 8,510,900 3.0
Environment
200 Environment HQ 107,317 113,200 (5,883) 150,700 5.2 210 Waste and Cleansing Services 9,243,771 8,730,800 512,971 11,815,300 5.9 220 Assets and Property Services 3,947,313 3,969,700 (22,387) 5,464,800 0.6 230 Building Control, Licensing & Neighbour (7,387) 68,700 (76,087) 225,400 110.8
Totals 13,291,014 12,882,400 408,614 17,656,200 3.2
Regen, Development & Planning
300 Regen, Dev & Planning HQ 91,303 135,400 (44,097) 213,300 32.6 310 Regeneration 500,112 661,300 (161,188) 1,023,200 24.4 320 Econ Dev & Tourism 764,426 837,500 (73,074) 1,145,600 8.7 330 Planning 536,041 541,800 (5,759) 777,700 1.1 340 Tourism 1,237,771 1,414,600 (176,829) 1,786,700 12.5
Totals 3,129,653 3,590,600 (460,947) 4,946,500 12.8
Finance & Performance
400 Finance & Performance HQ 78,537 81,900 (3,363) 109,400 4.1 410 Internal Audit 61,190 61,525 (335) 72,000 0.5 420 Finance 1,075,533 1,218,200 (142,667) 1,714,300 11.7 430 Performance & Projects 1,336,697 1,390,800 (54,103) 1,885,800 3.9
Totals 2,551,957 2,752,425 (200,468) 3,781,500 7.3
Org Development & Administration
500 OD & Admin HQ 94,882 93,800 1,082 124,500 1.2 510 HR & OD 620,843 604,000 16,843 800,600 2.8 520 Administration & Customer Svcs 2,241,844 2,321,000 (79,156) 3,121,800 3.4
Totals 2,957,568 3,018,800 (61,232) 4,046,900 2.0
Chief Executive
600 Chief Executive 161,791 175,600 (13,809) 234,000 7.9 610 Community Planning 122,216 135,600 (13,384) 181,600 9.9 620 Corporate Communications 307,157 306,900 257 410,800 0.1
Totals 591,164 618,100 (26,936) 826,400 4.4
NET COST OF SERVICES 28,689,196 29,223,825 C (534,629) 39,768,400 1.8
Non Service Income and Expenditure
910 Capital Financing 4,839,026 4,970,300 (131,274) 6,896,300 2.6 920 Bank Interest (44,859) (45,600) 741 (60,900) (1.6) 930 Year End Transactions 40,577 59,900 (19,324) 157,500 32.3 940 District Rates & Grants (35,023,340) (35,071,000) 47,660 (46,761,300) (0.1) 940 CIES Reconciliation (30,188,597) (30,086,400) D (102,197) (39,768,400) (0.3)
Grand Totals A (1,499,400)11 B (862,575) E (636,825) - (73.8)
CS.13.02.18 PM
BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Income and Expenditure
Period 9 - December 2017
Expenditure Income Note Actual Budget Variance Actual Budget Variance £ £ £
Community & Wellbeing
100 Community & Wellbeing HQ 169,478 148,200 21,278 - - - 110 Environmental Health 1,492,068 1,486,900 5,168 (330,344) (359,100) 28,756 120 Community and Culture 1,761,547 2,318,300 (556,753) (465,334) (889,700) 424,366 130 Leisure and Amenities 5,429,351 5,633,000 (203,649) (1,888,925) (1,976,100) 87,175
Totals 8,852,444 9,586,400 (733,956) (2,684,604) (3,224,900) 540,296
Environment
200 Environment HQ 107,317 113,200 (5,883) - - - 210 Waste and Cleansing Services 10,409,236 9,997,800 411,436 (1,165,465) (1,267,000) 101,535 220 Assets and Property Services 4,109,450 4,109,500 (50) (162,137) (139,800) (22,337) 230 Building Control, Licensing & Neighbour 1,825,726 1,809,500 16,226 (1,833,113) (1,740,800) (92,313) ------Totals 16,451,730 16,030,000 421,730 (3,160,715) (3,147,600) (13,115)
Regen, Development & Planning
300 Regen, Dev & Planning HQ 91,303 135,400 (44,097) - - - 310 Regeneration 693,670 812,000 (118,330) (193,557) (150,700) (42,857) 320 Econ Dev 1,005,296 1,036,500 (31,204) (240,871) (199,000) (41,871) 330 Planning 1,265,473 1,373,500 (108,027) (729,431) (831,700) 102,269 340 Tourism 1,311,576 1,473,800 (162,224) (73,805) (59,200) (14,605)
Totals 4,367,317 4,831,200 (463,883) (1,237,665) (1,240,600) 2,935
Finance & Performance
400 Finance & Performance HQ 78,537 81,900 (3,363) - - - 410 Internal Audit 61,190 61,525 (335) - - - 420 Finance 1,075,534 1,218,200 (142,666) (1) - (1) 430 Performance & Projects 1,336,697 1,390,800 (54,103) - - -
Totals 2,551,958 2,752,425 (200,467) (1) - (1)
Org Development & Administration
500 OD & Admin HQ 94,882 93,800 1,082 - - - 510 HR & OD 621,139 604,000 17,139 (296) - (296) 520 Administration & Customer Svcs 2,502,923 2,578,300 (75,377) (261,080) (257,300) (3,780)
Totals 3,218,944 3,276,100 (57,156) (261,375) (257,300) (4,075)
Chief Executive
600 Chief Executive 161,791 175,600 (13,809) - - - 610 Community Planning 122,216 135,600 (13,384) - - - 620 Corporate Communications 307,171 306,900 271 (14) - (14)
Totals 591,178 618,100 (26,922) (14) - (14)
NET COST OF SERVICES 36,033,571 37,094,225 (1,060,654) (7,344,374) (7,870,400) 526,026
Non Service Income and Expenditure
910 Capital Financing 4,839,026 4,970,300 (131,274) - - - 920 Bank Interest - - - (44,859) (45,600) 741 930 Year End Transactions 40,865 59,900 (19,036) (288) - (288) 940 District Rates & Grants - - - (35,023,340) (35,071,000) 47,660 940 CIES Reconciliation 4,879,890 5,030,200 (150,310) (35,068,487) (35,116,600) 48,113
Grand Totals 40,913,461 1242,124,425 F (1,210,964) (42,412,861) (42,987,000) G 574,139
CS.13.02.18 PM
RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes this report.
The Interim Director of Finance and Performance guided members through the report highlighting the salient points within it.
(Alderman Keery entered the meeting at this stage – 7.36pm)
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Carson, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation be adopted.
4. COMMUNITY PLANNNG UPDATE – FILE REF: CPL 8 (Appendix I)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 30 January 2018 from the Chief Executive stating that the Big Plan for Ards and North Down had been adopted by Ards and North Down’s Strategic Community Planning Partnership on 14 March 2017 and published on 30 March 2017. It was based upon ‘creating positive outcomes for everyone’ by empowering individuals and communities to be more resilient; reducing inequality; promoting good relations and sustainability; while at the same time improving the quality and accessibility of all public services.
The Big Plan contained high level aspirations that the Strategic Community Planning Partnership would work towards achieving by 2032. While the Big Plan referenced some of the key issues with Ards and North Down that affected each of the five outcomes, specific actions on what would be done to work towards each outcome were absent from the printed document.
Workshops to develop delivery plans Three workshops (nine in total) were run with Strategic Community Planning Partners to create three delivery plans (see attachments).
The following rules were applied to facilitate the effective development of the three plans: Actions had to be written by the organisations or individuals identified as ‘Lead Partners’ and not by the Council’s Community Planning service; The Lead Partner had the final say on the wording for their action and the appropriate performance measures; Members of each group were discouraged from writing actions for another partners without their knowledge or their agreement; No action was allowed in the Delivery Plan without an identified and agreed upon Lead Partner; and Members of each Thematic Wellbeing Group were responsible for ensuring that what was put in the delivery plans was communicated back to their own organisation for approval.
13
CS.13.02.18 PM
Not every issue in the Big Plan was addressed in the first iteration of the Delivery Plans. The Big Plan was a 15-year aspiration and the Delivery Plans were live, evolving documents meaning additional actions could be added at any time.
Format of the Delivery Plans The Delivery Plans were live and evolving documents, subject to ongoing review, and would be performance managed using an Outcomes Based Accountability (OBA) approach. Not all performance measures had been identified for each action, but those would be reviewed and updated by the Thematic Wellbeing Groups in the new year. The actions in the Delivery Plans were high level and in some cases, were supported by sub-actions. For each headline action a ‘Lead Partner’ had been identified.
A lead partner did not have sole responsibility for the achievement of an action and many other partners would be involved in contributing to its achievement through the delivery of sub-actions. A lead partner would have a significant interest in ensuring the success of their actions which were closely linked to the remit of their own organisation.
Lead partners were responsible for: Co-ordinating the contributions of identified partners to define and agree the performance accountability scorecard for each action, including agreeing performance measures and the involvement of each identified partner towards the action; Reporting to the Community Planning Partnership on progress using the identified performance measures; Acting as key point of contact for the Community Planning Partnership in relation to that action. Timescales within the Delivery Plans Within the Delivery Plans it had been challenging to identify a uniform method of setting out the timescales for each action. This was due to the varied nature of each action. Some actions included in the Plan related to a funded programme, some were linked to a time bound strategy and others were more flexible with a start date not yet identified.
Turning the Curve Reports Each high-level action would have an OBA ‘turning the curve’ report written for it. Those reports would provide more detail on the high-level action but would also contain information on each sub-action. Those reports would help to inform the ‘Performance Report Cards’ that would eventually be used to provide progress updates to the Strategic Community Planning Partnership.
The Next Steps The Thematic Wellbeing Groups would meet in February and would be joined by members of a newly formed 3rd Sector Community Planning Forum. The emphasis would be on sub-actions and collaboration as community planning was about partners working together. The format of the Delivery Plans would help demonstrate where multiple partners were contributing to the achievement of higher level actions. Turning the Curve reports would be written for each action.
14
CS.13.02.18 PM
Promotion and engagement on the Delivery Plans would be undertaken under the umbrella of ‘The Big Conversation’. This would not be a consultation exercise but would focus on gathering feedback that could be used to inform the ongoing development of the delivery plans.
RECOMMENDED that this report is noted.
Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the recommendation be adopted.
Councillor Barry welcomed the report and expressed his thanks to the Community Planning Manager, adding that he looked forward to the Plan being rolled out in due course and involving local communities and citizens alike. Continuing he sought confirmation that communities would be treated as equal partners with statutory organisations.
The Community Planning Manager confirmed that legislation dictated that a role had to be made for communities, however she stated that initially statutory organisations and the community had been separated in order to develop the first version of the Delivery Plans. She added that through that action it was hoped to encourage statutory partners to step up, take ownership and get more involved. Continuing the Community Planning Manager advised that a 3rd Sector Community Planning Forum had been newly formed, the Chair of which would attend future meetings of the Strategic Community Planning Partnership thereby enabling them to be more fully involved with the Plan going forward.
At this stage Councillor Barry raised some concern in respect of the lack of available statistical data as the Council had the services of a NISRA (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency) Statistician. In light of this he asked the Community Planning Manager if a plan was in place to obtain the necessary statistics which would assist to move the Plan forward.
In response the Community Planning Manager confirmed that the NISRA Statistician currently employed by the Council allocated 60% of her time to working with her and added that some of the required statistics did not currently exist. She added that the Council would continue to work with its colleagues in NISRA and the Department for Communities to encourage the data to be released at local Government level.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the recommendation be adopted.
5. 2018 REVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (Appendix II)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 31 January 2018 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that Revised Proposals for new Parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland were published on 30 January 2018 for consultation. The proposals followed a review by the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland which began on 24 February 2016. As a result of
15
CS.13.02.18 PM the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 (as amended), the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland had reduced from 18 to 17 and this had required a redrawing of the existing constituency boundaries.
The publication of the Commission’s revised proposals triggered an 8-week public consultation period. Full details of the consultation were detailed within the attached email.
RECOMMENDED that Elected Members respond individually or as political parties if they wish.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the recommendation be adopted.
6. FREEDOM OF THE BOROUGH – UPDATE ON POLICY (Appendix III)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 31 January 2018 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that in May 2015 Council approved an eligibility criteria and nomination procedure for conferring Freedoms of the Borough. However, the maximum number of Freedoms of the Borough per Council term was not determined at that time.
It was now proposed that the maximum number of Freedoms of the Borough conferred per Council term was two and that any Freedom of the Borough award agreed would normally be held in the following financial year to allow officers the opportunity to make provision through the budgeting process.
RECOMMENDED that the maximum number of Freedoms of the Borough conferred per Council term is two and that any Freedom of the Borough award agreed will normally be held in the following financial year.
Alderman Carson proposed, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the recommendation be adopted.
Alderman Graham acknowledged that the key was to avoid any potential embarrassment in respect of applications made for the Freedom of the Borough being turned down by Council. He stated that, while he had slight reservations in respect of the requirement for only six signatures on the Notice of Motion, he was content as long as the matter was kept under review.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Carson, seconded by Alderman Graham, that the recommendation be adopted.
16
CS.13.02.18 PM
7. EVENT TO MARK CENTENARY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1918 – FILE REF: CEV46 (Appendix IV)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 2 February 2018 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that correspondence had been received from the Department for Communities (DfC) advising of arrangements to mark the Centenary of the Representation of the People Act 1918, which reformed the electoral system in the UK. The Act widened suffrage by granting the vote to women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification and also gave the vote to all men over the age of 21, as well as instituting the present system of holding general elections on one day and the introduction of the annual electoral register. The Act marked its centenary on 6 February 2018.
DfC had responsibility for gender equality policy and was co-ordinating events and initiatives to mark the centenary in Northern Ireland. The centenary provided a significant opportunity not only to celebrate this landmark Act, but to highlight its significance and to build a legacy for the future by encouraging greater participation and diversity in political and public life in Northern Ireland. The objectives of the centenary commemoration were to:-
Celebrate the centenary; Educate young people on its significance; and Build a legacy for the future by encouraging young women in political and public life.
DfC was currently developing plans to mark the centenary which they intended to share but had asked for details of any plans the Council had to mark the centenary. This information would facilitate a collaborative approach and potentially enable delivery of a programme of events and initiatives across central and local government
RECOMMNEDED that The Council agrees in principle to hold an event in 2018 to mark this centenary, on a date and time to be confirmed, which meets the DfC objectives outlined above. The costs of the event would be met from existing Civic Events budgets. Officers work in partnership with colleagues in the North Down Museum, the Somme Museum or elsewhere, as appropriate, to design a compelling programme; and/or themes an established event around this subject. Officers notify the Department for Communities and the Corporate Services Committee and Council of the proposed event in due course.
(The Mayor had also organised a lunchtime event focused on raising the profile of Women in Public Life on Wednesday, 7 March 2018 to raise money for the Mayor’s Charities. Council staff and local community groups would be invited).
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the recommendation be adopted.
17
CS.13.02.18 PM
8. ARMISTICE DAY 2018 WORKING GROUP – FILE REF: ADM 24 (Appendix V)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 6 February 2018 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration attaching the minutes of the inaugural Armistice Day 2018 Working Group meeting held on 1 February 2018. They included a preliminary schedule of planned events.
RECOMMENDED the minutes are noted.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted.
(Councillor Barry left the meeting at this stage – 7.48pm)
9. SUSTAINABLE NI 2018/19 LETTER AND WORK PLAN (Appendix VI)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 29 January 2018 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that Councils had a statutory duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development under the NI (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, reinforced in the Community Planning component of the 2014 Local Government Act and the role of local councils in responding to important issues like pollution, energy security and climate change had never been more important.
During 2017/18 Sustainable NI worked alongside the Council on several initiatives including the deployment of electric vehicles and the promotion of Northern Ireland Forest School Association (NIFSA) work at Clandeboye Estate. Council Officers also attended training on ethical and sustainable procurement and fuel poverty awareness, and Project 24 was featured as an exemplary case study on the Sustainable NI website.
The subscription of £5,000 was included in the 2018/19 budgets.
RECOMMENDED that payment of the subscription is noted.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the recommendation be adopted.
(Councillor Barry entered the meeting at this stage – 7.49pm)
10. CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT SAFEGUARDING BOARD FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (SBNI) STRATEGIC PLAN 2018- 2022– FILE REF: ADM3 (Appendix VII)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 5 February 2018 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that the consultation on the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) draft Strategic Plan 2018 – 2022
18
CS.13.02.18 PM was circulated for consultation on 10 January 2018. The consultation period would close on 6 March 2018.
The Compliance Officer (Equality and Safeguarding), sat on the SBNI South Eastern Panel on behalf of the Council, and had completed the questionnaire on behalf of Ards and North Down Borough Council.
RECOMMENDED that the completed questionnaire is approved and submitted to SBNI.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Carson, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation be adopted.
11. NOTICES OF MOTION
11.1. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY ALDERMAN IRVINE
Alderman Irvine proposed, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that this Council acknowledges that 2018 marks the centenary of Bangor Football Club and congratulates the club in reaching this important milestone in its history. We praise the major contribution it has made to the sporting life of the Borough throughout the last century and agrees to host a civic reception to mark this special year for the club.
Alderman Irvine expressed the view that a Civic Reception would be very fitting particularly as the Club was celebrating its centenary in 2018.
He informed members that the Club had been founded in 1914 by two people in a rowing boat out on Bangor Bay. A new Club was subsequently reformed in 1918 and Alderman Irvine regaled its many feature matches and successes throughout the years as well as its defeats particularly against its neighbouring rivals Ards. He also made reference to the Club’s home ground at Clandeboye Park, Bangor and former players such as Gerry Armstrong and Terry Neill.
In summing up he encouraged members to support his notice of motion as he believed it would be a fitting way to celebrate the Club’s centenary year in 2018.
Rising as seconder, Councillor Gilmour agreed that it was a great milestone for the Club which had seen many highs and lows. She acknowledged that football was a sport enjoyed by men and women alike and noted the Club’s inception during the year which had also secured the vote for women.
Alderman Carson stated that while he had no problem supporting the proposal he sought clarification on whether or not such an event had been budgeted for and asked what costs would normally be associated with Civic Events.
The Director of Organisational Development and Administration confirmed that several civic events had been budgeted for and costs associated them would be dependent upon their nature.
19
CS.13.02.18 PM
Councillor Muir stated that he too had no problem with the proposal adding that the concerns raised by Alderman Carson had been concerns for him also. Continuing he reminded members that a policy to consider Civic Receptions had previously been agreed by the Corporate Services Committee at its meeting on 8 November 2016. Therefore, in light of that he asked if the Notice of Motion before them met the Policy which required three signatures and approval by the Chief Executive.
In response the Director of Organisational Development and Administration confirmed that Councillor Muir was correct and if three signatures were provided the proposal would be taken through the correct procedures.
At this stage Councillor McIlveen stated that he would be happy to support the proposal as it was important for the Council to mark local achievements such as this. He added that he too was content that Alderman Irvine would ensure the request followed the correct procedures as required under the Policy.
In summing up Alderman Irvine thanked members for all of their comments and support.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that this Council acknowledges that 2018 marks the centenary of Bangor Football Club and congratulates the club in reaching this important milestone in its history. We praise the major contribution it has made to the sporting life of the Borough throughout the last century and agrees to host a civic reception to mark this special year for the club.
11.2. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR WILSON AND COUNCILLOR MCALPINE
Councillor Wilson proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry, that this Council unreservedly condemns on-going paramilitary style assaults occurring in our Borough, affirms without equivocation that responsibility for the upholding and enforcement of Rule of Law within communities plus the apprehension and prosecution of offenders rests solely with lawful bodies such as the Police Service of NI, Public Prosecution Service and the Courts, pledges our full and absolute support for the Police in their efforts to apprehend culprits behind these barbaric attacks and urges the public to provide any information that can help apprehend those responsible, detect crime and end the insidious influence that paramilitaries continue to have on communities.
Councillor Wilson stated that the reason he had brought the motion before members was because he felt it was important that the Council sent a clear message to the public that it backed the rule of law and that there was no place for illegal vigilantism and paramilitary style assaults in society. He noted that in the last four years there had been over 300 such attacks and latest figures for the province showed that last year paramilitary shootings had doubled and paramilitary assaults had risen by 14%. The figures for Ards and North Down were even more shocking with overall attacks nearly doubling when compared to the previous year.
20
CS.13.02.18 PM
At this stage Councillor Wilson referred to one attack which had taken place in the Borough which particularly stood out and that had been the attack on a 23-year-old in Newtownards. During this attack a young man had been shot in his elbows, knees and ankles, six bullets in total, however thankfully, he had managed to survive.
Continuing he stated that there were two main reasons for bringing the Notice of Motion forward for consideration.
Firstly, he noted that unfortunately there was a small amount of public support for those criminals and it was clear from reading comments on social media and from speaking to members of the public that there was a feeling from some that those attacks were in some way justified. Councillor Wilson stated that he had heard comments citing the ineffectiveness of the police and the leniency of prison sentences as excuses for those terrorist groups taking the law into their own hands.
The second reason he felt the motion was necessary was that some politicians had sent very mixed messages when it came to paramilitaries. He expressed the view that surely as elected representatives, they should fully support the rule of law and the lawful bodies that were in place to tackle criminality. As politicians they were duty bound to stand firm against those who terrorised their local communities. He noted the incidents of public money going to those who were clearly still involved in criminality and by failing to properly tackle the scourge of paramilitarism, adding that inaction spoke volumes in his opinion.
Thanking Councillor Wilson for bringing forward his motion, Councillor Barry agreed that it was necessary to change the legacy of this ongoing criminality amongst local communities. Indeed, he recalled a recent incident whereby a well-known community activist had been attacked in Bangor adding that as far as he was aware no-one had yet been charged in connection with that. Continuing he stated that he now refused to work with Charter NI given intelligence he had been provided with by members of the local communities about its work. In summing up he welcomed the proposal and expressed his support for it.
Councillor Kennedy proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Smith, that furthermore the Council condemns any and all individuals and organisations that continue to commemorate and glorify paramilitaries, paramilitary organisations and the murderous atrocities committed by those organisations, as has been seen in the naming of children’s play parks, clothing children as gunmen and in the naming of sporting competitions, trophies, club names and ground names after terrorists; at the same time that Council acknowledges the attempts by individuals to encourage those within paramilitary organisations to abandon all forms of criminality and to do all that we can to assist in this process.
Councillor Kennedy stated that he had no problem supporting the proposal as put by Councillor Wilson, however he believed that he had missed an opportunity for the Council to take a greater stand on the matter. Continuing he suggested that if anyone had information relating to any such incidents that they should report it to the appropriate authorities immediately. Councillor Kennedy reiterated that it was not acceptable behaviour for anyone to enjoy wallowing in the memory of those who had
21
CS.13.02.18 PM lost their lives and added that he was opposed to the glorification of those involved in such atrocities.
Alderman Graham agreed this was a difficult matter to resolve and was without doubt prevalent throughout many local communities. Continuing he stated that he had personal experience of this and recalled an incident which had occurred a number of years ago and acknowledged the difficulties associated with encouraging people to come forward with any evidence which could be used against those involved in such activities. He expressed the view that this problem stemmed from the Good Friday Agreement which had seen many prisoners serving life sentences released as part of that deal. In summing up Alderman Graham expressed his support for the notice of motion and the amendment.
Rising in support of the notice of motion and the amendment, Councillor McIlveen commented that there was no place in society for such vile and brazen attacks adding that he was supportive of the rule of law. He agreed that a clear message needed to be sent out to all that such behaviour was not acceptable in society. In summing up he agreed that it was essential to ensure that witnesses to such attacks were encouraged to come forward with any evidence they may have.
At this stage Councillor Chambers expressed his support also for the notice of motion and the amendment adding that there was no role for such activity in society. He acknowledged that there were those who had little or no respect for the PSNI and were fearful of coming forward with evidence in such cases.
Councillor Smith stated that he had witnessed the devastating effects those attacks could have on the local community and added that there was no place in society for those paramilitaries. Referring to Councillor Wilson’s comments he hoped anyone who had any evidence relating to such attacks would take that evidence to the PSNI.
Councillor Muir made reference to two themes those being paramilitary attacks and the glorification of terrorism. Figures for January 2017 reported 8 paramilitary style attacks in comparison to 17 which had been reported in January 2018, a significant increase. He expressed concern with that increase and stated that the Council and politicians needed to be seen to be taking a stand against such activities. He agreed that the glorification of victims should not be allowed to continue and was in his opinion futile and something which would only serve to bring Northern Ireland back to the brink.
In summing up Councillor Wilson thanked members for their support adding that he was very happy to support the amendment as put forward.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Barry, that this Council unreservedly condemns on-going paramilitary style assaults occurring in our Borough, affirms without equivocation that responsibility for the upholding and enforcement of Rule of Law within communities plus the apprehension and prosecution of offenders rests solely with lawful bodies such as the Police Service of NI, Public Prosecution Service and the Courts, pledges our full and absolute support for the Police in their efforts to apprehend culprits behind these barbaric attacks
22
CS.13.02.18 PM and urges the public to provide any information that can help apprehend those responsible, detect crime and end the insidious influence that paramilitaries continue to have on communities.
FURTHER AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Kennedy, seconded by Councillor Smith, that the Council condemns any and all individuals and organisations that continue to commemorate and glorify paramilitaries, paramilitary organisations and the murderous atrocities committed by those organisations, as has been seen in the naming of children’s play parks, clothing children as gunmen and in the naming of sporting competitions, trophies, club names and ground names after terrorists; at the same time that Council acknowledges the attempts by individuals to encourage those within paramilitary organisations to abandon all forms of criminality and to do all that we can to assist in this process.
11.3. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR CHAMBERS
(Alderman Carson left the meeting at this stage – 8.34pm)
Councillor Chambers proposed, seconded by Councillor Brooks that this Council calls on the Department for Infrastructure to remove the Orlock Road, Groomsport from The Roads (Speed Limit) 913) Order (Northern Ireland) 1997 in the interests of road safety and in so doing restores the original 30 mph limit on it.
Councillor Chambers informed members that the Orlock Road was a narrow twisting road that left the main A2 Bangor to Donaghadee Road and re-emerged on the A2 at a point, around three quarters of a mile closer to Donaghadee. He stated that it had always been considered to be subject to a 30mph restriction as all the criteria to qualify as a restricted road had been met. He noted that it had street lighting and residential properties which fronted onto it. Continuing Councillor Chambers noted that it had two junctions, one close to a blind bend, that served as an entrance and exit to approximately 50 homes. He added that those junctions had no cut backs or tapered sight lines and noted the road was also used by some Ulsterbus services.
Councillor Chambers advised members that in 1997, the Department passed the Statutory Order 146, Roads (Speed Limit) (Number 13) Order (Northern Ireland) 1997. This Order had the effect of de-restricting Orlock Road, along with over 100 other roads in Northern Ireland making them subject to the National Speed Limit. No explanation had ever been given as to why Orlock Road had been included and indeed none of the local residents or public representatives had any recollection of that happening.
Continuing Councillor Chambers stated that repeater signs should have been erected to indicate that it was a de-restricted road but that had never happened. Indeed, he noted some months ago, a departmental audit had revealed this breach of the legislation by the Department and a number of National Speed Limit signs were erected along the Orlock Road. Currently he advised that the Department was refusing to even consider reapplying a 30mph limit despite conceding that it did meet all the criteria and required specific legislation to de-restrict it on 1997.
23
CS.13.02.18 PM
Councillor Chambers thanked members for the opportunity to bring forward his notice of motion.
(Councillor Kennedy left the meeting at this stage – 8.37pm)
Concurring with those comments, Councillor Brooks urged members to support the proposal as put.
Noting the residential nature of the Orlock Road, Alderman Graham expressed his surprise on learning that it had a designated speed limit of 60 mph and therefore he was fully supportive of the proposal.
Councillor Muir raised a number of potential safety concerns with the current designated speed limit and suggested that those concerns were raised with Transport NI.
Alderman Keery proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Barry that furthermore the Council writes to the PSNI and asks it to come on board in light of the health and safety issues which had been raised.
In summing up, Councillor Chambers indicated that he was content to accept the amendment and thanked members for their supportive comments.
(Councillor Smith left the meeting at this stage – 8.40pm)
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Chambers, seconded by Councillor Brooks, that this Council calls on the Department for Infrastructure to remove the Orlock Road, Groomsport from The Roads (Speed Limit) 913) Order (Northern Ireland) 1997 in the interests of road safety and in so doing restores the original 30 mph limit on it.
FURTHER AGREED TO RECOOMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Keery, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the Council writes to the PSNI and asks it to come on board in light of the health and safety issues which had been raised.
11.4. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MCILLVEEN
Councillor McIlveen proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry that this Council, in line with the environmental aims under its corporate plan, gives due consideration to the public sector Workplace Charging Scheme when replacing fleet vehicles which can provide grants of up to £4500 off the price of a new electric car and £8000 off the price of a new electric van; applying for electric charging points under the public sector estate programme; the cost effectiveness of investing in an electric pool car or cars as an alternative to mileage payments while promoting the use of low emission vehicles; and requests officers to provide a report to inform those considerations.
(Councillor Smith entered the meeting at this stage – 8.43pm)
24
CS.13.02.18 PM
Councillor McIlveen advised that his notice of motion was multi-faceted and proceeded to inform members that throughout Northern Ireland there were 54 public sector chargers, three of which were located in the Ards and North Down Borough. He also noted there was one 7 Watt charger located at Aurora Leisure Complex, Bangor.
Councillor McIlveen suggested that officers explored the funding options available under the public sector estate programme given the significant financial benefits along with the environmental benefits to be gained by switching to the use of electric cars. He informed members that latest figures indicated that it cost between £3-£5 to run an electric car for 100 miles, in comparison to £11-£16 for petrol cars.
(Councillor Kennedy entered the meeting at this stage – 8.45pm)
(Councillor Muir left the meeting at this stage – 8.46pm)
At this stage he referred to the current costs to the Council associated with both Councillor and staff mileage claims, noting that a total of £373,385 had been paid out in the last financial year. Councillor McIlveen added that Derry and Strabane District Council had recently introduced the use of electric cars which had resulted in savings of £16,000 per annum to date.
In summing up Councillor McIlveen commented that at this stage he was merely seeking a report to consider the options available and potential savings to be made and added that he looked forward to hearing members’ comments on the matter.
As an electric car owner, Councillor Barry stated that charging points were free to use and in his opinion the entire concept was cost effective as well as environmentally friendly. He agreed that further investment was required in respect of the provision of electric charging points and welcomed the suggestion of the Council considering the use of electric vehicles or hybrid vehicles.
(Councillor Muir entered the meeting at this stage – 8.47pm)
Councillor Smart stated that he was very happy to support the proposal.
Alderman Graham noted reference made to off peak charging and the benefits associated with that and expressed his support for the proposal.
In summing up Councillor McIlveen agreed that the use of a hybrid vehicle for vehicles such as the Mayor’s Car was a good idea and something which should explored. He acknowledged that technology was ever evolving with increases in ranges and a greater provision of charging points, including 7 Watt chargers, and that would help bridge the current gaps throughout the Borough.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Barry, that this Council, in line with the environmental aims under its corporate plan, gives due consideration to the public sector Workplace Charging Scheme when replacing fleet vehicles which can provide grants of up to £4500 off the price of a new electric car and £8000 off the price
25
CS.13.02.18 PM of a new electric van; applying for electric charging points under the public sector estate programme; the cost effectiveness of investing in an electric pool car or cars as an alternative to mileage payments while promoting the use of low emission vehicles; and requests officers to provide a report to inform those considerations.
EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Brooks, seconded by Councillor Kennedy, that the public/press be excluded from the meeting.
12. ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PROCUREMENT POLICY – FILE REF: 231329 (Appendix VIII)
***IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
13. CORPORATE BANKING CONTRACT- FILE REF: FIN35
***IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
14. MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT RENEWAL - FILE REF: BT18
***IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
26
CS.13.02.18 PM
15. OFFICE CLEANING FOR VARIOUS COUNCIL BUILDINGS FILE REF: PRO 52
***IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
16. REPORT OF CORPORATE PROJECT PORTFOLIO BOARD MEETING HELD ON 7 DECEMBER 2017(Appendix IX)
***IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
17.OUR PEOPLE PLAN 2018/19 – FILE REF:HR01
***IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
18.LEASE TO BRYANSBURN RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB – FILE REF: LP105 (Appendix X)
***IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
19. AWARD OF BLAIR MAYNE BURSARIES – FILE REF:ADM24 (Appendix XI)
***IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
27
CS.13.02.18 PM
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
20.ELECTED MEMBER DEVELOPMENT CHARTER – FILE REF: DIR/ADM4 (Appendix XII)
***IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC/PRESS
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Chambers, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the public/press be re-admitted to the meeting.
TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated at 9.12 pm.
28
ITEM 8.5
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 February 2018 at 7.00pm.
PRESENT:
In the Chair: Councillor Brooks
Aldermen: Irvine Smith
Councillors: Adair McAlpine Boyle Menagh Chambers Muir Cooper Smart Douglas Smith Edmund Thompson Kennedy Woods Martin
Officers: Director of Community and Wellbeing (G Bannister), Interim Director of Finance and Performance (J Pentland), Head of Environmental Health, Protection and Development (M Potts), Head of Community and Culture (J Nixey), and Democratic Services Officer (H Loebnau)
Also in Attendance: Councillor Robinson
1. APOLOGIES
There were no apologies.
NOTED.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Chairman asked for any declarations of interest and Alderman Irvine declared an interest in Item 13 – Bangor Sportsplex.
NOTED.
3. DEPUTATIONS
3.1 Five Tennis Club Joint Strategy (Appendix I)
CW 14.02.18 PM
The Chairman welcomed the speakers Alistair Dunn, Cloughey & District Tennis Club, and Trevor Octave, Donaghadee Tennis Club, along with representatives from the other three clubs located within the Borough and invited Alistair Dunn to make a presentation on behalf of all the clubs. He indicated that a joint strategy to promote the development of tennis across the Borough for 2018-2022 had been prepared. Mr Dunn said that tennis had once been viewed as an elitist game for stuffy people wearing tennis whites. That image was now outdated and the sport and its participants had changed.
Tennis was a sport for life, it was non-contact, suitable for all ages, boys, girls and families could play together and it could be played in all weathers and all year round.
Mr Dunn went on to say that the clubs had a shared vision for tennis aimed at:
Increasing regular participation in tennis from all sectors of the community by developing a varied club based programme to attract and retain members. Increasing junior participation by outreach to schools and developing further junior tennis activities, including junior performance groups Promoting tennis as a participation sport for all, not limited by age, gender or ability, contributing to promoting healthy lifestyles across the Council areas; specifically, to develop tennis opportunities and coaching for disadvantaged and target groups, such as the disabled, wheelchair users, girls aged 15-18 years and women generally.
The Clubs within the Borough had a target to grow membership across the 5 clubs by 20% by 2022. A collaborative coaching programme would be put in place and at least 1000 primary school children each year in the Borough would have opportunities to be introduced to tennis. It was hoped to have full flood lighting at all 5 clubs to allow evening play all year round by 2021. It also anticipated having access to at least 8 indoor or covered tennis courts to provide guaranteed tennis in winter months by 2022 as a target.
In order to achieve those aims and targets the clubs required the following commitment and action from Ards and North Down Council to improve facilities:
Ensure that all courts and pavilions were safe and fit for purpose: currently Helen’s Bay courts were urgently in need of resurfacing. Support and implement full disabled access and the capacity for wheelchair tennis at all 5 clubs where practical. Promote and support development of full floodlighting at all five clubs. Work together with the clubs to develop recreational and competitive tennis across the Council area. Develop indoor tennis provision at the new Dairy Hall complex and assist clubs to obtain grant funding to install domes at 2 of the 5 clubs where feasible, and in the short time to ensure better access to the existing Comber Dome during winter months.
The Clubs would commit to working together to:
2
CW 14.02.18 PM
Set up joint coaching arrangements, coordinate junior tournaments and facilitate the development of elite junior coaching squads; and Develop adult interclub play and tournaments and set up coaching and tennis opportunities for disadvantaged people and target groups as facilities development allowed.
The Chairman thanked Mr Dunn for his presentation and invited Members to address questions to him and Mr Octave.
Councillor Dunne thanked Mr Dunn for this presentation which had been informative and well put together. He referred to the extensive programme of works in Cloughey and wondered if participation levels had increased following those works. In response Members were informed that membership of that tennis club had almost doubled and it was easier to attract members when surroundings were pleasant.
Councillor Dunne went on to pay tribute to Robin Masefield and his wife who had been growing the game in Helen’s Bay and noted that floodlights and resurfacing works were now required there and he hoped that funding would be available for that.
Councillor Martin echoed the comment of his colleague and had been inspired by the enthusiasm shown by the clubs. He asked if there was a sense on how Council could help to ‘buy in’ to the work of the clubs or was funding a priority. Mr Octave stated that Council owned the Cloughey courts and now Helen’s Bay needed support with grant money and the raising of the club’s profile. Working in partnership was key going forward as was work in schools to inform and engage young people.
Councillor Martin spoke for Members of the committee by stating that if there was anything Council could do it would and while he recognised that currently budgets were tight sometimes savings could be made by working smarter.
Councillor Douglas thanked Mr Dunn for the informative presentation which clearly described the impact of participation and the holistic wellbeing which resulted from that. She asked about the clubs work with Council to date and how it was planned to raise the profile of tennis.
In response, Mr Dunn said that the clubs had found that engagement with Council’s leisure services section had been helpful and well received. The Five Clubs Strategy had been put in place and had been endorsed by the Ulster Tennis Association in Northern Ireland. The local clubs held open days and attempted to link some of those with national or international sports events such as Wimbledon. It hoped particularly to target those who were often considered to be disadvantaged when it came to sporting participation. Work had been done with children in schools on the Ards Peninsula stressing the positive aspects of the sport. There were also clear benefits of clubs working together to access grants. Councillor Douglas expressed her commitment to the sport and would work with Council to support tennis locally.
Alderman Smith was also supportive. She often visited the Helen’s Bay tennis club and the work which Robin Masefield and his wife did in that place was amazing.
3
CW 14.02.18 PM
Without their commitment the club might not be there. She thought that the clubs could have a higher profile since much of the good work was unknown.
Mr Dunn referred to after school tennis provision and said that thousands of primary schools were participating in tennis each year. Summer scheme events and schemes also gave children the opportunity to have fun playing tennis. Help was needed from Council and Sport NI. Alderman Smith encouraged the clubs to be hard-nosed about promoting themselves and wished them success going forward.
Councillor Adair thanked the clubs and said he was aware at first hand of the benefits that the investment in Cloughey had made to the community - it was also an investment in the Ards Peninsula. He agreed that improvements should be made through the proper structures and referred to the benefits of multiuse courts. He concluded by wishing the clubs well and thanked them for their hard work and dedication.
Councillor Menagh agreed and said that he was aware of the work of the St Patrick’s Racquets Club and new indoor opportunity at the replacement Leisure Centre in Newtownards would bring even more opportunities. He explained that the set up in Dairy Hall would be second to none and should be available for all clubs to use. He assured the clubs that if there was anything Council could do to help them it would be done although he pointed to the constraints of the current financial budget.
The Chairman, Councillor Brooks concluded the discussion and said that he was aware from walking in Donaghadee that the local club was always busy. He urged the clubs to take advantage of every opportunity they could and said that other clubs in the Borough did likewise and they were not afraid to ask for what they needed. He thanked the tennis clubs for being represented and they left the meeting at 7.30 pm.
(Alderman Smith and Councillors Martin and Edmund left the meeting at 7.30 pm)
NOTED.
4. CONSULTATION ON ORGAN DONATION (FILE CW112)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Community and Wellbeing dated 29 January 2018 detailing that the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) for Northern Ireland, Dr Michael McBride, had requested views on the issue of organ donation in Northern Ireland.
Legislation introduced by the Assembly in 2016, required the Department of Health to promote organ donation. The Department of Health was using the opportunity to take stock of existing arrangements, consider approaches to promoting organ donation that had been successful both here and elsewhere, and plan for further progress.
Through the consultation the Department was seeking views on a draft policy on ways to increase the number of successful organ and tissue donations. It proposed a series of commitments centred around coordinated engagement and education activities. Those activities included the involvement of local government and
4
CW 14.02.18 PM community groups. The Council had been consulted to help shape the approach to fulfilling that new statutory requirement, which would be to the maximum benefit of patients and to the health service in general.
RECOMMENDED that the Council respond to the consultation as per the completed “Consultation Proposals and Response Questionnaire” in the appendix.
Councillor Thompson agreed with the officers’ response and hoped that through education the donor situation could be improved going forward.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.
5. COMMUNITY AND WELLBING CONTROL REPORT (FILE FIN45)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report from the Director of Community and Wellbeing dated 24 January 2018 detailing that the Community & Wellbeing Budgetary Control Report covered the 9-month period 1 April to 31 December 2017 and was set out. The net cost of services was showing an under spend of £193,660 (3.0%).
Explanation of Variance
A Budgetary Control Report by Income and Expenditure for the Directorate was, also shown which analysed the overall favourable variance (£193,660) by expenditure (£733,956 favourable) and income (£540,296 adverse). However, if the net nil distorting effect on income and expenditure of Peace IV grants was removed then the variance for expenditure was £325,056 favourable and income £131,396 adverse.
COMMUNITY & WELLBEING
Expenditure - £734.0k (7.7%) better than budget to date. That favourable variance was mainly made up of the following: - 1. Community & Wellbeing HQ - £21.3k adverse. Consultancy costs £9.7k adverse (V4 consultancy in connection with the potential outsourcing of the remainder of Leisure Services. This was not budgeted for). Legal fees £11.4k adverse in respect of Holywood Rugby Club (legacy issue – not budgeted for).
2. Environmental Health - £5.2k adverse. a. Payroll £20.2k adverse mainly due to final payments made to an employee who retired on ill health grounds at the end of April. b. Mileage is £5.5k favourable year to date. c. Samples analysis is currently £11.7k favourable to date though this is expected to come back into line with budget as the year progresses.
3. Community & Culture - £556.8k favourable.
5
CW 14.02.18 PM
a. Payroll £93.6k favourable mainly due to underspends in Community Development (£46.8k), Good Relations (£16.5k), Peace IV (£13.7k) and Arts Development (£7.3k). Vacant posts in these services are to be filled as the year progresses. b. Community Partnership is £17.5k under budget but this is offset by a similar adverse variance on income – see 6a below. c. Community Activity & Summer Programmes running costs are £21.9k under budget to date. d. Peace 4 grant payments are £408.9k under budget to date but this is offset by a similar adverse variance on income – see 6b below.
4. Leisure & Amenities - £203.6k favourable. a. Payroll £11.3k favourable which is mainly due to underspends in Parks and Cemeteries (£95.5k), Community Halls/Centres (£27.9k) and Leisure Admin (£27.1k) with an overspend in Leisure (£139.4k). The overspend in Leisure is mainly in Ards LC (£117.5k), Comber LC (£19.7k) and Londonderry Park (£20.3k) offset by favourable variances on Sports Development (£17.3k). The overspends in Leisure have been caused by additional overtime, casuals and agency to cover staff shortages and essential shifts. b. Ards LC (£61.0k), Comber LC (£5.0k), (Portaferry SC (£9.8k) and Londonderry Park (£16.8k) running costs (excluding payroll) are £92.6k under budget to date. c. Community Halls/Centres running costs (excluding payroll) are £21.8k under budget to date. d. Parks and Cemeteries running costs (excluding payroll) are £17.5k adverse to date. e. There are a number of small favourable variances to date for other Leisure services such as Ards Half Marathon £3.7k, 10k Road Race £13.8k (offset by similar reduction in income – see 5d below), Sports Pavilions £16.3k, Sports & Football Development £5.7k, Bangor Sportsplex £5.9k, Queens Hall £7.9k and Countryside Management £8.1k.
Income - £540.3k (16.8%) worse than budget to date. This adverse variance is mainly made up of the following: -
5. Leisure & Amenities - £87.2k adverse. a. Ards LC £85.4k adverse (mainly momentum fitness and café and vending); Comber LC £49.0k adverse (mainly momentum fitness, tennis and membership), Portaferry Sports Centre £10.1k favourable and Londonderry Park £14.2k favourable. Fitness membership direct debits are up by over 300 members across the 3 Centres. This increase was secured from the beginning of August until the end of December and completely reverses the previous trend and market norms for that time of year. It is anticipated that with the continued recruitment and restructure drive this exceptional positive trend will continue in 2018. With an average income of approximately £24 (exc. VAT) per person per month this will result in a potential extra £85k of income over a 12-month period.
6
CW 14.02.18 PM
b. Community Halls/Centres income is £17.5k better than budget to date. c. Cemeteries income is £26.1k better than budget to date. d. Bangor 10k Road Race income is £12.5k adverse to date – offset by similar reduction in expenditure (see 4e above). e. Football Development income is currently £6.6k adverse but this is expected to reduce as the year progresses.
6. Community and Culture - £424.4k adverse. a. Community Partnership is £17.5k adverse but this is offset by a similar favourable variance on expenditure – see 3b above. b. Peace 4 grant income is £408.9k adverse but this is offset by a similar favourable variance on project spend – see 3d above. c. Arts Summer Programme is £6.4k better than budget to date.
7. Environmental Health - £28.8k adverse. a. Affordable Warmth grant is £26.8k less than budgeted. Associated expenditure is being reduced in line with the grant reduction. There are indications that the grant allocation may increase later this year.
BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Directorate and Service
Period 9 - December 2017
Note Year to Date Year to Date Variance Annual Variance Actual Budget Budget £ £ £ £ %
Community & Wellbeing
100 Community & Wellbeing HQ 169,478 148,200 21,278 200,300 14.4 110 Environmental Health 1,161,724 1,127,800 33,924 1,489,000 3.0 120 Community and Culture 1,296,213 1,428,600 (132,387) 1,785,100 9.3 130 Leisure and Amenities 3,540,425 3,656,900 (116,475) 5,036,500 3.2
Totals 6,167,840 6,361,500 (193,660) 8,510,900 3.0
7
CW 14.02.18 PM
BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Income and Expenditure
Period 9 - December 2017
Expenditure Income Note Actual Budget Variance Actual Budget Variance £ £ £
Community & Wellbeing
100 Community & Wellbeing HQ 169,478 148,200 21,278 - - - 110 Environmental Health 1,492,068 1,486,900 5,168 (330,344) (359,100) 28,756 120 Community and Culture 1,761,547 2,318,300 (556,753) (465,334) (889,700) 424,366 130 Leisure and Amenities 5,429,351 5,633,000 (203,649) (1,888,925) (1,976,100) 87,175
Totals 8,852,444 9,586,400 (733,956) (2,684,604) (3,224,900) 540,296
RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the report.
Reference was made to the improving situation in the leisure centre at William Street, Newtownards. That was due to management changes and Councillor Menagh added that approximately 300 new members had been signed up recently and much credit for that could be placed with the new staff structures there.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Menagh, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that the recommendation be adopted.
6. SUMMER SCHEMES PROPOSAL 2018 (FILE CDV25)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report from the Director of Community and Wellbeing dated 1 February 2018 detailing that as Members would be aware the Community Development (CD) Team had been reviewing the development and delivery of summer schemes across the Borough. The report would outline a new and exciting proposal for summer scheme development and delivery.
The previously reported 2017 summer scheme evaluation demonstrated many strengths and allowed officers to explore future improvements. The key points emerging from the 2017 evaluation, consultation with the three Networks and communities and taking on board Members comments at January’s committee meeting, were:
The need for continued growth in supporting community led summer schemes. Increase provision on the Peninsula where there is a perceived lack of summer provision. Council Summer Schemes and Community Summer Schemes should be co- designed to ensure resources are needs led and efficiently used. With Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and fewer diversionary opportunities available for young people due to fewer available resources, summer scheme opportunities should be made available for these slightly older young people, where a need is identified.
8
CW 14.02.18 PM
Community Led Summer Schemes It was recommended that community groups were offered the opportunity to co design, produce and deliver community led summer schemes. Community groups in the following areas that had provisionally agreed to take the lead were as follows:
Millisle, (Millisle Youth Forum) Ballywalter/Ballyhalbert, (Ballywalter Community Action Group) Kilcooley, (The Womans Centre) Breezemount (Breezemount Community Association) The groups would work alongside the Community Development Team and together support and facilitate the design and delivery of their summer schemes. The support would comprise of; promoting volunteers, training, project planning and management and financial management.
The genuine partnership reduced bureaucracy for groups and maintained a consistent approach regarding programme development and delivery, which in turn created a summer scheme benchmark and a high quality standard. That was a collaborative and sustainable methodology which was also central to the Big Plan and therefore complimentary.
As previously reported, the Breezemount community led summer scheme pilot demonstrated that the community development approach could be successful. As a result of that success the 2018 summer scheme plan had evolved from 2017, however, the extension of the scheme would continue to run as a pilot, to enable the schemes to be appropriately evaluated.
Support for the extended community led summer schemes could be met from the Community Development (CD) budget.
Council Summer Schemes Following increased involvement from the community combined with a needs led assessment and feedback received from 2017, it was proposed the following locations be used for Council summer schemes:
George Green, Redburn, Ballygowan, West Winds / Scrabo, Portavogie. The Council summer schemes would be delivered similar to previous years, with the exception of the West Winds/Scrabo scheme where, in response to ASB concerns an additional summer scheme targeting a slightly older age group, would be delivered. The CD Team would work with other statutory agencies to prevent duplication, make full use of resources and officers would work collaboratively with statutory and non-statutory partners to deliver the pilot summer scheme programme for young people in West Winds/Scrabo.
9
CW 14.02.18 PM
In response to feedback, plans were in place to promote all summer scheme opportunities and streamline registration. The Community Development Team would also recruit and support 10 summer scheme volunteers under the new Volunteer Policy.
The benefits
This was a collaborative proposal incorporating a community development approach working in partnership with other statutory and non-statutory organisations but above all it harnessed the good will and direction of the community. The summer scheme programme for 2018 would achieve a more widely available summer scheme, more child places would become available, with more input than ever before from residents of the Borough and community volunteers. It must be recognised the volunteers were already delivering valuable services and work across the Borough. The approach would also ensure that summer schemes would meet a quality standard reflecting good practice. Training and support would be integral to the approach in order to continue to maintain a high quality standard. It would help to ensure that all CD supported summer schemes would provide the same opportunities for children, whether the scheme was delivered by CD Team or a community group. That would begin the process of building better and stronger summer schemes for the future by building on the strong development work created throughout a supportive and facilitative approach. CD Team would maximise the summer scheme budget by continuing to deliver high quality programmes but would also facilitate local communities to do the same, creating a high quality benchmark for all schemes supported through the CD summer scheme budget.
As well as recording the number of attendees, all those involved from stakeholders to users would be given the opportunity to provide feedback on their summer scheme experience. That would help officers to measure the success of all aspects, from promotion and registration through to delivery. The results would help identify the strengths and build on the weaknesses into 2019.
RECOMMENDED that Council approves the Council summer schemes and pilot community led summer schemes as detailed in the report.
Councillor Adair welcomed the report and queried was the summer scheme in Ballygowan or Comber since the report and map had conflicted. The Director confirmed that the scheme would take place in Ballygowan and the Mayor welcomed that since he believed that Ballygowan often felt like the forgotten village.
The Mayor remarked that since the merger there were more schemes on the Ards Peninsula and he believed that was a good thing. They would benefit many young people and promote an active community and improve wellbeing. He hoped for continued involvement by the community in the future along with rotation of opportunity and commended officers for the report.
(Councillor Edmund entered the meeting at 7.35 pm)
10
CW 14.02.18 PM
Councillor Boyle agreed welcoming the additional summer schemes to the Peninsula but was concerned that there were some casualties as well and he named the Glen Estate, an area which experienced disadvantage. He welcomed the other schemes but wondered where Council was going with them and what justified rotating them.
(Councillor Smith and Councillor Martin entered the meeting at 7.36 pm)
The Head of Community and Culture explained that there had been a lot of discussion with the community organisations and sports groups on the Peninsula and there existed other provision in Portaferry and the Glen Estate already.
Attendance at Council schemes in those areas had been low as a result despite extensive promotion. The need in an area and the geographic spread of schemes was also considered as well as existing provision.
The intention was to pilot community led schemes and discussions had taken place with community groups including the one at the Glen Estate and Council was happy to work with any group. Evaluation of how the schemes ran would take place to guide future decisions. If a need was identified it would be supported within the budget. Schemes would not necessarily be rotated but provided on the basis of need and where there were gaps in provision.
Councillor Menagh said that there were already schemes at the Glen Estate and he was pleased that attempts were being made to engage older children aged 11-14 years with schemes targeted to their needs and in doing so some areas of anti-social behaviour could be addressed. He wholeheartedly supported investment in summer schemes.
Councillor Smart shared the disappointment at the Glen Estate scheme being dropped and he appreciated the educational content of such schemes. He believed that some schemes took a while to develop and many would build up numbers as the years moved on.
In response to a query, the Head of Community and Culture spoke of volunteer training alongside the training with Council staff and a good programme had been developed. Financial support existed to help recruit and support volunteers.
Alderman Irvine spoke of the work in Kilcooley which would take place in the Women’s Centre. He believed that the Harbour area of Bangor could be neglected by Council provision and that was an area of increased anti-social behaviour over the summer months. The Head of Community and Culture described how the Kilcooley community group had been keen to take on the mantel when Council had through necessity needed to drop a summer scheme and added that Council would look at the Harbour area going forward but Aurora also ran schemes in that area which provided local people with opportunities.
Councillor Woods discussed provision for the older age groups and the Head of Community and Culture discussed the collaboration with community safety and a pilot scheme in the West Winds which, if successful, Council could look at spreading.
11
CW 14.02.18 PM
The Councillor asked how recruitment took place and was advised that they were community volunteers and those positions would be advertised locally and volunteers would be trained and verified as suitable through an Access NI check.
Councillor Edmund was delighted with the report and the schemes and praised the work of volunteers. It was right that they should get support and the perception that they were not needed was wrong. He put on record his thanks to the volunteers and community groups for making many schemes happen.
Alderman Smith though it a difficult path to take and each year saw improvements. She hoped that all community groups carried insurance in case of problems. Members were advised that insurance checks were a normal Council check.
Councillor Martin queried if Council could look at training and remarked that some of those training courses such as level 3 only required 16 hours attendance. The Head of Community and Culture agreed that that might be something that Council could consider in the future but given resources available accredited courses were not planned for the short term.
Councillor Thompson welcomed the report and the work of officers certainly on the Peninsula side. The volunteers also deserved recognition and he hoped that the pilot schemes worked well.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Menagh, that the recommendation be adopted.
7. LISBARNETT AND LISBANE CAPITAL GRANT (FILE CG18065)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report from the Director of Community and Wellbeing dated 1 Feburary 2018 detailing that correspondence had been received from Lisbarnett and Lisbane Community Association (LLCA) requesting further draw down of funding under the Legacy Ards Borough Council’s Capital Grant for Non- Council owned Community Halls policy for further work to their community buildings. The Policy provided financial support to constituted “community groups who operate community halls (in the legacy Ards area) in settlements with no other neutral community facility.” The groups could receive funding of up to £25,000 in any ten year rolling period.
Previously the Council had approved a funding request for £17,471 from Lisbarnett and Lisbane Community Association (LLCA) for maintenance to the community buildings under the policy.
LLCA had now requested additional funding to re-decorate both community buildings to complete the refurbishment project now that the maintenance work was completed. The group had requested a further £3,882.00 for the following –
Painting and decorating for both community buildings - £2700.00 Carpeting of the main community building - £1182.00
12
CW 14.02.18 PM
As the work was under the threshold for the Council procurement policy the group had sought one quote for each piece of work.
RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the financial assistance for the stated refurbishment of the Lisbarnett and Lisbane community halls, as requested by Lisbarnett and Lisbane Community Group, up to a maximum of £3,882.00.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Adair, that the recommendation be adopted.
8. KILLINCHY DISTRICT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION CAPITAL GRANT (FILE CG18065)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report from the Director of Community and Wellbeing dated 1 February 2018 detailing that correspondence had been received from Killinchy District Community Association (Killinchy DCA) requesting financial assistance under the Legacy Ards Borough Council policy – Capital Grants for Non- Council owned Community Halls. The Policy provided financial support to constituted community groups who operated community halls (in the legacy Ards area) in settlements with no other neutral facility.” The groups could receive funding of up to £25,000 in any ten year rolling period.
Killinchy DCA applied for the grant in 2011 and 2014 for different pieces of work and were successful. To date they had received funds to the total of £11,805.00. That therefore left a balance of £13,195.00 over the next four years.
The group had requested to draw down a further £2,000 of the grant to carry out some additional work which included –
Plumbing work to fix the heating and connect the hot water taps. Shelving in the stores Painting of the stores
As the work had been estimated at less than what was stated in the Council’s procurement policy threshold, quotations were not necessary. However, if approved the funds would only be released following the Councils verification process.
RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the financial assistance for the stated works in Killinchy community hall, as requested by Killinchy DCA, up to a maximum of £2,000.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Smart, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the recommendation be adopted.
9. SPORTS FORUM GRANTS (FILE SD109)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report from the Director of Community and Wellbeing dated 2 February 2018 detailing that Members would be aware that on the 26th August 2015 Council delegated authority to the Ards and North Down Sports
13
CW 14.02.18 PM
Forum Borough, in order to allow it to administer sports grants funding on behalf of the Council. £25,000 had been allocated within the 2017/2018 revenue budget for that purpose.
The Council further authorised the Forum under delegated powers to award grants of up to £250. Grants above £250 still required Council approval. In addition, the Council requested that regular updates were reported to members.
During January 2018, the Forum received a total of 14 grant applications; 8 of which were for Travel and Accommodation, 1 of which was for Equipment, 3 of which were for coaching, 1 of which was for Anniversary Event and we also had 1 Gold Card Application.
A summary of the applications were detailed in the attached appendix 1 January 2018.
For information, the annual budget and spend to date on grant categories was as followed:
January 2018 Annual Budget Funding Awarded Remaining January 2018 Budget Travel and Accommodation* 13,000.00 1040 978.54 Coaching* 3,000.00 600 1886.25 Equipment * 3,500.00 1000 -4905.55 Events 4,000.00 0 1505.49 Seeding 500.00 0 500 Anniversary* 1,000.00 1000 0 Gold Cards Issued during the period January 2018 is 1
* The proposed remaining budget for Travel & Accommodation of £978.54 was based on a proposed award of £1040.00 with reclaimed costs of £93.26 and withdrawn costs of £100 in the period as listed in the appendix. The proposed remaining budget for Equipment of £-4905.55 was based on a proposed award of £1000 with reclaimed costs of £223.42. The proposed remaining budget for Coaching of £1886.25 was based on proposed award of £600.00 in the period was listed. The proposed remaining budget for Anniversary of £0 was based on a proposed award of £1000 in the period as listed. It should be noted that there was an overspend in the equipment funding element of the grant scheme but that could be covered from an underspend in other elements. There would be no impact on overall budgets.
RECOMMENDED that Council approves the attached applications for financial assistance for sporting purposes valued at above £250, and that the applications approved by the forum (valued at below £250) be noted.
Members were informed that, as agreed by Council, any applications which met the guidelines for the remainder of the year would be honoured through the reallocation from any underspend of the Councils grant schemes. The Committee was in
14
CW 14.02.18 PM agreement with the chair who pointed out that the report was good news and noted that there were no unsuccessful applications.
Councillor Martin wondered if it was possible to have a copy of information relating to what grants were available from Council. The Director advised that was possible and that the information was available on the Council’s website. Capital grants were available bi-annually and sports grants were considered on a monthly basis.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Menagh, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the recommendation be adopted.
10. FLORAL DEVELOPMENT WORKS ON NEWTOWNARDS ROUNDABOUTS (FILE PCA55)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report from the Director of Community and Wellbeing dated 2 February 2018 detailing that across the Borough, Council had the responsibility for maintaining a number of high profile traffic roundabouts.
Roundabouts are located in the following towns and villages: -
Newtownards – seven locations Bangor – six locations Comber – two locations Ballygowan – one location
All roundabouts were under the ownership of the Department for Infrastructure and in order to enhance the appearance and promote civic pride, Council carry out the development and ongoing maintenance at a cost.
To ensure the displays on the roundabouts were appropriate and contributed to the appearance of each location, a rolling programme of review was proposed across the portfolio of locations. That commenced with Newtownards in 2018, with a similar review planned for the Bangor Roundabout sites in 2019, and Comber and Ballygowan proposed for 2020. A five-yearly review would be carried out for each town thereafter.
Following the review of the floral displays on the Newtownards town centre roundabouts, the list below highlighted the locations of the Council maintained roundabouts: -
Ards Shopping Centre Scrabo Road Comber Road Castle Bawn Portaferry Road Frederick Street (Adjacent to the Council Offices) Zion Place/Bangor Road
15
CW 14.02.18 PM
The review took into account the current condition of the floral displays some of which had been in place for many years. That resulted in developing a programme to enhance current planting and introduce more appropriate plant material to provide better structure, colour and ecological value, while enabling difficulties from perennial weed material to be addressed. The new plantings would not only improve the appearance at certain locations, but also raise the profile of the town with regard to involvement in the Ulster In Bloom and Best Kept campaigns.
A list of the proposed works was as follows: -
Ards Shopping Centre – Works had commenced on that site as a result of bedding failures due to wet ground conditions in the last few years. Structure planting and the sowing of an annual floral mix had been carried out in summer 2017. In order to augment that work further, it was proposed that an additional annual sowing would be carried out to provide better summer colour on the approach into the town. Additional works were to be completed during Spring 2018.
Scrabo Road - Sight line issues were raised at that location and the existing planting was removed. Additional soil conditioning and improvement had been carried out. It was proposed to replace the planting with low level planting to enhance the appearance but not impede sight lines. Planting to be carried out during Spring 2018.
Comber Road – Structure planting and seasonal display was appropriate at that location and no change was proposed to the annual programme of works.
Castle Bawn – Structure planting and seasonal display was appropriate at that location and no change was proposed to the annual programme of works.
Portaferry Road – Structure planting and seasonal display was appropriate at that location and no change was proposed to the annual programme of works.
Frederick Street (Adjacent to the Council Offices) – The planting at that location currently was comprised of formal rose beds, standard trees and naturalised spring bulbs. Over the past few years, the formal rose beds had been affected by an increasing level of perennial weed growth which had proved difficult to eradicate. That had led to poor floral display and appearance of the location. In order to control the perennial weeds and eradicate them completely, it was necessary to remove the roses and return the beds to grass. That would enable initial chemical control and also prevent regrowth through mowing. It was proposed that in order to introduce new planting to the location that new beds were introduced outside of the areas affected by the perennial weed to provide all year-round colour. That would include a mix of herbaceous and annual planting together with structure plants to provide for all year-round display. The works were to be carried in Autumn 2018. It should be noted that towns strong rose growing tradition would be preserved in the current rose displays at Zion Place/ Bangor Road roundabout and also at the War Memorial at Court Square.
16
CW 14.02.18 PM
Zion Place/Bangor Road – Structure planting and seasonal display was appropriate at this location and no change was proposed to the annual programme of works.
All works outlined above could be carried out from within proposed 2018/19 budgets. Any adjustments to the proposed programme of works would require enhanced budget provision. It was also proposed that a further review of the above locations would be carried out in 2023.
RECOMMENDED that Council approves the programme of works outlined above.
Councillor Boyle commented that the displays were important and paid tribute to the staff involved. Members were in agreement that the floral displays at roundabouts improved the look and feel of a town. Alderman Irvine referred to the roundabout at Gransha Road in Bangor and asked if priority could be given to it. The Director asked if further details of the concern could be provided and explained that work was planned to be done in phases over 3 years.
Councillor Smart thanked officers and staff for their work on floral displays and spoke about Frederick Street and the floral displays there which were rather let down by the rusty railings nearby and the weed growth in the cobble stones. That roundabout was a hub for the entry to the town and he suggested that Council discussed that matter and potential improvements with Transport NI whose responsibility that was.
Councillor Chambers, in providing clarity to Alderman Irvine’s query, asked if anything could be done to provide clear sight lines for drivers at the Gransha Road location so that vision was not impeded.
Councillor Edmund thanked officers for the report and highlighted the main car park at South Street which was overgrown by weeds and litter and was not a good image for the town either for local people or visitors.
In response the Director informed members that there was a soft surfaces works programme underway and that work should be carried out over the next few weeks at that location.
Councillor Thompson spoke about the Ulster in Bloom awards and wondered if Council had a proactive plan in place for that. The Director replied that Council did enter annually and the park teams had in house knowledge and expertise on planning for such competitions. It was hoped that more awards would come Council’s way in the near future.
(Councillor Adair left the meeting at 8.04 pm)
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Boyle, seconded by Councillor Irvine, that the recommendations be adopted.
17
CW 14.02.18 PM
11. NOTICE OF MOTION
11.1 Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillor Cooper
That this Council promotes the ‘is Angela working?’ initiative and encourages all local businesses and stakeholders to encourage awareness to protect those in need of help or protection in a public place.
Proposed by Councillor Cooper and seconded by Councillor Robinson
Councillor Cooper began by saying that the 'ask Angela' scheme was a simple enough concept, whereby anyone who was feeling uncomfortable, threatened or in danger, could simply ask members of staff in any club, or bar 'is Angela working?' which in turn was understood by staff to mean there was something wrong, and the individual could be escorted into a taxi, or a safe room, or indeed protected from whatever source of threat was presented.
The initiative had already prevented many potential sexual and actual assaults throughout Great Britain, and it was his hope that it could be adopted in the Borough and eventually, right across Northern Ireland.
Councillor Robinson commended Councillor Cooper for bringing the Notice of Motion and considered it timely in Northern Ireland. The scheme had been promoted in parts of the United Kingdom and could be helpful for people feeling threatened or people meeting others on blind dates for example. She hoped that her Council colleagues could see the benefit of this locally.
Councillor Douglas rose to support the Motion and believed it to be a great idea. Anyone experiencing harassment or feeling threatened could seek help. Councillor Woods added that she would support doorstaff security being aware and trained also. She spoke from her experience of working in a bar/restaurant and explained that it was not always obvious when people were in trouble.
Alderman Irvine also supported the Motion and said that it was important that people felt safe. He suggested that the PCSP could be involved to increase awareness.
Councillor Smart thanked Councillor Cooper stating that the Motion was worthwhile and could have a big impact in local communities.
Councillor Kennedy also asked to be associated with the Motion. He explained that often such initiatives came as the result of a serious incident but this was not an organic issue, neither was it over the top, it was sensible and could be easily rolled out. It also had the potential to save victims.
Councillor Cooper was delighted that everyone across the political spectrum had supported him, and in tandem with the Policing Community Safety Partnership, which he was also a member of, Council could work to promote that worthy concept to help reduce the risks facing many when they were out in nightclubs and bars.,
EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS
18
CW 14.02.18 PM
AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Smart, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the public/press be excluded during discussion of the undernoted items of confidential business.
12. UPDATED LEISURE AND VAT ISSUES (FILE CW71)
***COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
(Alderman Irvine left the meeting at 8.12 pm)
(Councillor Chambers left the meeting at 8.13 pm)
13. BANGOR SPORTSPLEX (FILE CW51)
***COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE***
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***
Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).
RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC/PRESS
AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Dunne, seconded by Alderman Smith, that the public/press be re-admitted to the meeting.
14. ANY OTHER NOTIFIED BUSINESS
There were no other items of notified business.
TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated at 8.17 pm.
19
ITEM 8.6
ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL
A special meeting of the Regeneration and Development Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Thursday 22 February 2018 at 7.00 pm.
PRESENT:
In the Chair: Councillor Cummings
Aldermen: Irvine M Smith
Councillors: Allen Smart Gilmour Smith Menagh Woods
In Attendance: Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning (S McCullough), Head of Regeneration (B Dorrian), Head of Economic Development (C McGill), Temporary Head of Tourism (S Mahaffy), Head of Planning (A McCullough) and Democratic Services Officer (J Glasgow)
Also in Attendance: James Hennessey (Paul Hogarth Company) and Declan Mackin (RSM).
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend were received from the Mayor (Councillor Adair) who was attending a mayoral engagement and from Alderman McDowell, Councillors Walker, Smith, Armstrong-Cotter, Cooper and Ferguson.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations of interest were advised.
3. INTEGRATED TOURISM REGENERATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOMENT STRATEGY 2018-2030 (ITRDS) (Appendices I & II)
PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 14 February 2018 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching ITRDS document and corresponding appendices. The report provided an update on the above.
Background
The Paul Hogarth Company had been commissioned in April 2017 to develop an Integrated Tourism, Regeneration and Economic Development Strategy for the Borough. The Strategy aimed to respond to the vision and outcomes of the Big Plan for Ards and North Down and was to be used as the common point of reference for SpRDC.22.02.18 all those contributing to the growth of the local economy, the welcoming of visitors and the improvement of local places, both urban and rural.
The strategy had been researched and developed through a collaborative process involving stakeholders from the public, private and community sectors and was built on an evidence base of research that identified key assets of the Borough, as well as economic and environmental challenges faced at a local and regional level.
Over the 12-year period the strategy would aim to create jobs, increase economic productivity, increase visitor overnight trips and expenditure. Doing so would be achieved by 19 Integrated Actions for delivery by the Council and its key stakeholders and partners under 6 Thematic Priority Areas:
. Promote to Attract Investment . Connect their Places and People . Equip with Skills and Spaces . Excel in Quality and Value . Nurture our Assets . Understand their Progress and Potential
The Strategy provided a strategic vision for the Borough and as such was designed for implementation by a range of stakeholders. However, as the commissioning body and local authority responsible for the Borough, the Council played a key role in the co-ordination and delivery of the Strategy.
The successful realisation of the Strategy would be dependent on the Council providing a strong and visible leadership role, working collectively across the Council, as well as the formation of effective partnerships beyond council. The Strategy would also require investment, both in terms of projects, people and place, as well as ensuring the Council had adequate capacity and resources to deliver.
Innovation was also key. Thinking out of the box would be a crucial factor in successfully delivering the 12-year strategy, achieving its outcomes and overcoming inevitable challenges associated with increased integration and investment in the current climate. The overarching principles of Integration, Investment and Innovation would therefore be key to the successful delivery of the Strategy.
Next steps
Once the Strategy had been approved, it was proposed to hold a launch on Wednesday 28 March 2018 at the Orange Tree, Greyabbey. Full details would follow.
Terms of Reference for the Economic Forum, emanating from the strategy, would be agreed in March 2018 and it was proposed to establish the Forum Quarter 1 of the new financial year.
Work to further engage Strategic Partners (Big Plan group) would commence April 2018 and would be ongoing over the period of the Strategy.
2
SpRDC.22.02.18
Development of detailed Action Plans with key partners (including resources, timings, etc.) would commence once the strategy had been adopted. That would be ongoing and feed into annual Service Unit Plans to be reviewed on a regular basis.
Review of the Structures/Resources required by the Council to deliver the Strategy would commence April 2018.
RECOMMENDED that the Council adopts the Integrated Tourism, Regeneration and Economic Development Strategy for Ards and North Down 2018-2030.
Mr Hennessey commenced by explaining that the strategy document provided an overview of the Borough, the vision and outlined the thematic priorities. The appendices included more of the detail and it was intention of the Council to produce a summary document. He recalled at the workshop held on 15 January 2018, that feedback was obtained and a number of key issues were raised:-
- Extent of engagement (esp with businesses) - Implications of key sectors (esp Agri Food & Tourism) - Role of Events - Delivery & Next Steps (eg Transport Strategy) - USPs of the Integrated Strategy
Mr Hennessey stated that the formation of the strategy had been a highly collaborative process with Members, Officers and stakeholders. He detailed that the inspiration for the direction taken was gathered from the landscape of the Borough, its people and its businesses which were critical components for informing and inspiring the strategy. Furthermore, data for the Borough was key and Mr Hennessey provided an overview of the undernoted baseline data:-
Environment – ¾ of all NI Marine Species in Strangford Lough Skills – Ranked 2nd among NI LGDs re % of population with higher level skills Creativity – 8 of NI’s top 30 Manufacturers Proximities – 10 Miles to City Airport & Docks from Bangor & Newtownards Employment level – 5.3% employee jobs increased by (+1,924) over the period of 2012 -16 Sectoral Composition – 30% employed in low growth sectors. 9% employed in high grow sectors Small Businesses – 89% Businesses with less than 10 employees Productivity – 63% of the NI Average GVA (Gross Value Added) Commuting – 52% Travel of work outside Borough Visitors – 6% of NI’s Overnight Trips
In order to realise the vision, within the document a series of outcomes and targets had been identified. Effective delivery against the identified targets would be a focussed and collaborative effort by all stakeholders and delivery organisations. Mr Hennessey advised that the strategy was for the Borough and was not just a Council strategy, but one for shared working and partnership to fulfil the outcomes. In terms of policy context, the strategy responded to the vision for Ards and North Down set out by the Big Plan and linked to regional strategies, the LDP and other Council
3
SpRDC.22.02.18 strategies. The strategy was set out commencing with 3 Propositions – Place, Visitor and Investment and was underpinned by 4 thematic priorities which drew upon the findings of the research and consultation process. Those shaped the approach that would be taken in the Borough and provided a framework within each to identify 19 integrated actions. Mr Hennessey explained that the integration of the actions was fundamental in achieving shared outcomes to create multiple benefits for the Borough.
Thematic Priorities
Promote to Attract Investment – To attract new business, residents and visitors, it is critical that key markets know about the Borough. It was noted that inward investment was low. In a competitive environment the message must be clear, simple and focussed on the unique assets the Borough had to offer. The promotion of the Borough was however, was simply not a marketing exercise for an external audience it needed to be a collective effort that built pride and confidence across the area.
- Borough and Marketing and Communications Strategy - Inward Investment and Diaspora Programme - Enterprise Promotion & Support - Borough Events Strategy
Connect Places and People – For the economy to grow and the Borough to flourish, people, places and assets must be well connected. The coastline provided great opportunity and potential for visitors. That would require strong physical links between places ensuring its assets were accessible. It would require faster digital links across the Borough, although the digital network was strong in places there were weak areas also. It would require further social links between organisations, communities and individuals. Such linkage would allow for the efficient movement of people, information, goods and services. It would also create the right conditions for more effective collaboration and partnership. These should be Private Sector industry led with close links to the Economic Development Forum.
- Blue and Greenway Network - Coastal Route - Sustainable Transport Strategy & Advocacy - Digital Network - Collaborative Networks
Equip with Skills and Spaces – To fulfil needs and avail of opportunities, people and organisations need to ensure the right skills and resources are in place. Education and training must be tailored to fit the needs of the Borough and its economy present and future. Space must be provided to allow for the economy to thrive and for the most effective delivery of services.
- Blue Green Accommodation Development - Skills Apprenticeship & Volunteer Programme - Queen’s Parade & Investment Zones - Towns & Village Flexi Spaces
4
SpRDC.22.02.18
Excel in Quality and Value – To prosper in a sustained manner, the Borough must become a byword for quality and high standards. Furthermore, provide a natural home for innovation and the implementation of new ideas and practices. That was about making the visitor experience as good as it possibly could be and extending the success of the public realm scheme encouraging place making across the Borough.
- Blue Green Visitor Experience Development - Town and Village Public Realm & Place Making
Nurture our Assets – The natural and built assets of Ards and North Down formed the strong basis for its prosperity and growth. Therefore, it is essential these are safeguarded for future generations. The places, the conservation, restoration of natural habitats and historic built environments are at the heart of the integrated strategy. It also means working to reduce the negative impact of environmental challenges which have local, as well as global implications.
- Blue Green Action Initiative - Carbon Reduction Strategy - Built Heritage Programme
Understand Our Progress and Potential – The better the Borough understands its places, assets and economy, the more effectively work could be undertaken to improve it. It was important to be forward thinking in understanding key aspects of relevance to its social, economic and environmental wellbeing. Not only would that shape policy and decision making, but also enhance the reputation of the Borough as a place for research and innovation.
Economic Development Forum – The development of a forum was fundamentally important with communications between the private sector, Council and other relevant agencies. Furthermore, the forum played a key role in identifying business needs and addressing those needs going forward.
Mr Mackin outlined to the Committee the extensive engagement that had occurred in the development of the Strategy which consisted of:-
25 Face to Face Consultations & Telephone Interviews 3 Surveys 1 Business Needs Survey (143 responses collated & presented) 1 Stakeholder Actions (1706 responses collated & presented) 1 Public Consultation (20 responses collated & presented) 23 Facilitated Workshops & Events 2 Large Consultation Events (Clandeboye) 9 Stakeholder Workshops 12 ANDBC Workshops (Elec Members / Officers) 20+ Client Meetings.
Mr Makin outlined that the 18 top largest employers within the Borough were contacted, 5 interviews were undertaken with one further having been scheduled. Mr Makin stated that through the interviews with businesses it could be seen that the growth outlook was positive. 4 out of the 5 businesses indicated that they were
5
SpRDC.22.02.18 positive about the growth of their business over the next 2-3 years and cited potential job creation opportunities. One respondent was unsure about future growth, highlighting that current public policy/austerity could constrain their ability to grow. Interviews with the businesses highlighted the undernoted with some of the points a reinforcement of other feedback received:-
Key factors cited constraining growth:-
- It was difficult to attract people to the area to fill vacancies – the Borough was seen as peripheral - The transport network/ public transport did not adequately support large businesses/ it impacted negatively on accessibility (e.g. frequency of public transport services to business parks) - There was limited physical space to expand (e.g. current facilities have limited car parking) - Political uncertainty (Brexit & Stormont) impacting on investment decisions.
These development needs are being addressed by the Strategy:
- Enhance promotion of the area as an attractive place to work, invest in, live and visit –remove perceptions of the area being peripheral - Improve transport connectivity to places of work (including public transport) - Increase the provision of commercial/ workspace - Enhance partnership working between public and private sector (e.g. in relation to skills development)
Mr Makin outlined the implications within the strategy for the key sectors, there was a need to attract more into the area in particular attract and establish increased numbers of high value and high growth businesses and a number of priority sectors had been identified. Mr Makin highlighted that the Borough was strong in manufacturing and agri-food however there was a need to build upon that success and support the existing sectors. Also, the strategy identified the need to increase business start-up and growth of local businesses as well as supporting enhanced tourism performance.
Role of Events - Mr Hennessey spoke of the need for a Borough Events Strategy, the events encompass a wide range of potential activities and were undertaken for a diverse range of reasons. A strategy would provide a more integrated, strategic and outcomes based approach to planning and delivering events across the Borough.
Delivery and Next Steps – For delivery collective working across the Council is required and the formation of effective partnerships beyond Council. Also, Mr Hennessey highlighted the need for investment and innovation to occur to make progress (thinking outside the box).
The next steps for delivery were:-
1. Strong and Visible Leadership 2. Collective working across Council 3. Formation of effective partnership beyond Council
6
SpRDC.22.02.18
4. Investment in projects, people and place 5. Adequate capacity and resources 6. Innovation (thinking out of the Box) Integration, Investment and Innovation were key.
The Unique Selling Points (USP) of the Strategy are – An integrated strategy that established a shared vision for tourism, regeneration and economic development. Mr Makin highlighted that Ards and North Down Borough Council was the first NI Local Authority to make a major commitment to Sustainable Development and the Blue & Green Economies. Furthermore, the strategy set an ambitious series of targets, delivery focussed integrated actions and already had the extensive participation & buy-in of multiple stakeholders.
That concluded the presentation.
The Chairman thanked Mr Hennessey and Mr Mackin for the presentation and he also paid tribute to the work of Officers and Members. He stated that the formation of the strategy had been a journey and members had been kept advised during the process and were involved throughout. The Chairman recognised that the strategy was ambitious which embraced local and global trends and represented the diversity across the Borough. He highlighted the need to adopt a holistic approach and the opportunities that were available for integration. The Chairman stated that he was excited and encouraged by the strategy and supported it being taken forward.
Proposed by Councillor Woods, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted.
Councillor Woods felt that the strategy was refreshing to see and she was excited by its development.
Councillor Smart welcomed the engagement that had occurred on the strategy and he felt those conversations had been meaningful. He highlighted the wish to regenerate and reinvigorate the Borough and recognised that some of the past efforts had not had the output that had first been hoped for. Councillor Smart recognised that the delivery was not going to be easy and it was difficult at times to engage with other parties. Councillor Smart asked what success of the strategy looked like and how at each step the Council could measure its success. In response Mr Hennessey explained that the strategy was outcome based and set in place a number of targets with baselines. Each action would require a more detailed baseline to measure the success. It was important that the strategy was adaptable, and it was reviewed every three years.
Adding to this Mr Mackin explained that the success would be demonstrated through the integrated nature of the strategy and how that was reconfigured needed to be shown through the delivery. Collaboration with the private sector would made a big difference to the outcomes.
Councillor Gilmour questioned if the consultants were satisfied that the outcomes were measurable. She noted that collaborative and partnership had been mentioned throughout and highlighted the challenges faced when attempting to get buy-in from
7
SpRDC.22.02.18 other bodies. In respect of the role of events, Councillor Gilmour noted that a number of the events were held for the reason that there were legacy events and she highlighted the success of the Loaves and Fishes event which was a new aspiration which had seen great growth. In response Mr Hennessey was content that the outcomes were measurable and noted that there were also service outcomes identified within the Community Plan. He recognised the challenges faced with partnership working however explained that collaboration with outside bodies required determination, leadership and dialogue.
Alderman Irvine questioned how the skills shortages could be identified and how those could be aligned to attract business to the Borough. He welcomed that a US firm was due to move to the Balloo Road in Bangor and held growth potential. Alderman Irvine also raised questions regarding the resourcing within the directorate to maximise the strategy for the whole Borough. He also felt entrepreneurs were an untapped resource to encourage investment. Also in terms of events, he felt the Borough should be attracting at least one large concert type event to the Borough per year. Mr Makin stated that the Economic Development Forum and Employability Skills Forum would provide the mechanism to identify the skills shortages and allow programmes to be developed in support of those shortages. The strategy highlighted entrepreneurs as well as ambassadors and the need to encourage promotion of both.
The Director advised that the Head of Economic Development had made exciting progress with DfC in respect of an Employability and Skills Forum.
Alderman Smith referred to the potential of the Boroughs coastline, the development opportunities and she looked forward to the positive outcomes. She questioned if the development of Bangor was dependent on the progress of Queen’s Parade. Mr Hennessey stated that in order to attract new investment into the Borough, it was important to identify, prepare and incentivise in key locations known as investment zones. Ideally that would be taken forward through the local development plan. That included Queen’s Parade however Mr Hennessey highlighted there were other adequately sized locations elsewhere in the Borough. He agreed that Queen’s Parade was a key consideration, but the strategy had other key actions and initiatives which would also drive the development of Bangor and the Borough.
Councillor Allen referred to the strengths within the Borough in terms of manufacturing and questioned if benefits could be yeaned from partnership working between those businesses and SERC. In response Mr Mackin referred to the strengths of the agri-good and advanced manufacturing businesses within the Borough and that those businesses were utilising external markets and working on product development. The starting point was not prescriptive and working with SERC and businesses was a good start, providing skills, apprenticeships and volunteering programmes for the growth of the sector.
Councillor Menagh highlighted the actions in terms of manufacturing and stated that that the number of factories in existence within the Borough was now relatively low along with the low availability of land. He stated that along the Comber Road, there used to be 7 factories and in the present day there was now none on that stretch. He was disappointed to read from a tourism point of view that only 6% of the visitors had
8
SpRDC.22.02.18 overnight trips in the Borough. Councillor Menagh supported the strategy, highlighting there was a lot of work to be done.
The Director highlighted to the Committee the next steps which were detailed in the covering report. Following Council approval, the plan was to launch the strategy on 28th March 2018. It was envisaged that the first meeting of the Economic Development Forum would take place at the beginning of the financial year and the public-sector partnership would be co-ordinated through the Community Planning Economic Working Group. The Director advised that detailed action plans would be developed.
AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Woods, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted.
4. ANY OTHER NOTIFIED BUSINESS
There were no items of any other notified business.
TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting terminated 8.11 pm.
9
Unclassified
ITEM 9.1
Ards and North Down Borough Council
Report Classification Unclassified
Council/Committee Council
Date of Meeting 28 February 2018
Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing
Responsible Head of Head of Leisure and Amenities Service
Date of Report 30 January 2018
File Reference PCA 56
Legislation None
Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:
Subject Request for Delegated Authority for Tender Award
Attachments None
The Parks and Cemeteries section are currently initiating a tender process for the supply of Arboricultural and Grounds Maintenance tenders. The tenders will run from 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019.
It is requested that Delegated Authority be given to the March meeting of Community and Wellbeing Committee to approve the tender award as the closing date for tenders was the 16 February 2018, with the assessment panel on the 22 February 2018. To report to Community and Wellbeing in March for ratification at the end of March would be too tight a timescale to allow the services in place by the 1st April 2018.
If Delegated Authority was granted for the C&W Committee on 14th March this would enable the tight timetable to be met, in regard, to having the services in place for the 1 April 2018.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approves the Delegated Authority be granted as outlined above.
Page 1 of 1
Ancre Somme Association Lurgan & Brownlow Royal British Legion Union Street Lurgan
Email: [email protected] Website: www.ancresommeassociation.co.uk Patrons: Lt Col Anthony Maher. Lt Col Gary Tait MBE.
03 FEB 18 William McFadzean VC Sportsman’s Dinner
Dear Chief Executive,
I am writing on behalf of the William McFadzean VC Commemoration Society. The Society was recently established as a working group of the Ancre Somme Association and consists of elected representatives from all levels of national, regional and local government as well as members of The Friends of Brownlow House, the Ancre Somme Association and members of the community who share our belief in the importance of remembrance.
I am sure that you are aware that William Fredrick McFadzean VC was born in High Street, Lurgan, Co Armagh on 9 October 1895, the son of William and Annie McFadzean. His father came from Dundalk, Co Louth and his mother from Co Down.
On 1 July 1916, he and his bombing team were getting ready for the attack in the assembly trenches close to the Front Line in Thiepval Wood. Grenades were being distributed amongst the men when a box of grenades being passed to Private McFadzean fell into the trench causing some grenades to become separated from their safety pins before falling into the crowded assembly trench. Without a thought for himself, William threw himself on top of the bombs. The bombs exploded, killing him instantly but only slightly wounding two other soldiers. Without doubt, he saved the lives of all soldiers in the vicinity. For this act of conspicuous bravery he was awarded the Victoria Cross.
A short video regarding the heroic action of Private William McFadzean can be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E_SfntnAAA
By public subscription the Society is currently raising the necessary funds that will result in a permanent sculpture of William being erected in his town of birth. The Society has commissioned the renowned Scottish artist, Helen Runciman, to produce a bronze sculpture of William that will be mounted on a granite plinth.
We are sure that you will agree that such acts of bravery should be remembered now and forever more. The Society has arranged a Sportsman’s Dinner to be held on Friday 16th March 2018 in Craigavon Civic & Conference Centre. The event will be hosted by the Lord Major of Armagh, Banbridge & Craigavon Borough Council with our special guests including Glasgow Rangers, AC Milan & England legend Mark Hateley, Manchester United, Newcastle United & Northern Ireland legend Keith Gillespie and BBC Sport NI pundit Liam Beckett MBE.
On behalf of the Society I would like to extend an invite to your Council to this prestigious event. Tickets are priced at £50 per person or £450 for a table of 10. I would request that this invitation be presented to your Council members for discussion. We would be delighted if all 11 Councils in Northern Ireland were represented at the event. The purchase of tickets will certainly contribute to the fundraising efforts of our society to ensure that one of Northern Ireland’s VC recipients will never be forgotten. If your organisation would like to reserve tickets or a table please contact me on 07920746760 or email [email protected]
Alternatively if your organisation wishes to make a financial donation please visit www.williammcfadzeanvc.org.uk/donate or you can send a cheque, made payable to the Ancre Somme Association, to the address above.
Thank you in advance for your support.
Yours Faithfully, Ant Maher
Lt Col Ant Maher Patron Ancre Somme Association
Code of Conduct Refresher Information Sessions for Councillors Facilitated by the Local Government Commissioner for Standards
1. 20th February 2018, 10.30—12.30pm Downshire Civic Centre, Downpatrick
2. 27th February 2018, 12.30pm—14.30pm Radisson Blu Hotel, Limavady
3. 7th March 2018, 12.30—14.30pm Glenavon Hotel, Cookstown
4. 27th March 2018, 17.30—19.30pm Bangor Castle, Bangor
Members of the Local Government Commissioner for Standards will discuss how they deal with allegations that councillors have breached the Code of Conduct. They will outline a councillors responsibilities under the Code and explain in practical terms how councillors can maintain compliance. Case studies will be used to illustrate a number of points and to help understanding.
A question and answer session will follow. Please note, staff from the Commissioner’s office cannot at any time discuss individual cases.
Hosted by NILGA with support from the LGTG (Local Government Training Group), these FREE events are open to all Elected Members. Councils should put forward interested councillor names to Fiona Douglas at the NILGA office by emailing [email protected]. Unclassified
ITEM 10.3
Ards and North Down Borough Council
Report Classification Unclassified
Council/Committee Council
Date of Meeting 28 February 2018
Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning
Responsible Head of Head of Planning Service
Date of Report 01 February 2018
File Reference
Legislation
Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:
Subject Landmark Chambers - Plan Making conference, London, 5th March 2018
Attachments Conference Flyer
Carson McDowell, planning lawyers for the Council, has brought this conference, hosted by Landmark Chambers, to the attention of the Head of Planning as being highly relevant in the context of the preparation of the Local Development Plan for Ards and North Down.
Landmark is ranked as the number one Planning and Environmental chambers in the UK by the top legal directories. Landmark comprises 88 barristers, of whom 31 are QCs, with a number of its barristers members of the Bar of Northern Ireland.
This one day conference on Plan Making, includes the following items within the programme:
The purpose of the examination and key concepts: soundness, duty to cooperate etc.; A Planning Inspector’s View; Handling the examination process – top tips for Local Planning Authorities;
Page 1 of 2
Unclassified
Strategic Environmental Assessment and Plan making: Legal update; The housing requirement in plan-making: the latest case-law and issues.
The cost of the conference is £120 + vat, however the Council can register for two complimentary places, therefore the only cost to Council would be return flights, which would be met out of the Planning Service budget.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council approves two members of the Planning Department to attend the Landmark Chambers Plan Making Conference in London on 5th March 2018 at a cost of return flights and subsistence. The benefit would be to garner up-to-date information and specific case-law updates in respect of the plan making process, from English experience for which this process has been in place for some twenty years.
Page 2 of 2
Plan Making Details Programme
Date: Monday 5th March 2018 09:30 Registration
Time: 09:45 - 16:00 09:45 Welcome by the Chair Christopher Katkowski QC, Landmark Chambers CPD: 5 09:50 The purpose of the examination and key concepts: soundness, duty to co-operate etc Who is it for? Planning Solicitors and Neil Cameron QC, Landmark Chambers Consultants 10:15 An Inspector’s view Fee: £120 + VAT Keith Holland, Director IPe formerly a Planning Inspector For a complimentary local authority place, please email 10:40 The housing requirement in plan-making: the latest [email protected] case-law and issues Zack Simons, Landmark Chambers Venue: 11:05 Tea & Coffee De Vere Grand Connaught Rooms 61-65 Great Queen Street 11:25 Interaction with Neighbourhood Plans London Stephen Morgan and Kate Olley, Landmark Chambers WC2B 5DA 11:50 S. 113 Legal challenges following adoption: the key issues Jacqueline Lean, Landmark Chambers
12:15 Lunch
13:15 Getting a Plan adopted Chris Tunnell, Arup formerly acting Head of Planning at Mid-Sussex
13:40 Handling the examination process: top tips for LPAs and objectors John Litton QC and Alex Goodman, Landmark Chambers
14:05 Air quality issues affecting Development Plans following Wealden v SSCLG Andrew Byass, Landmark Chambers
14:30 Tea & Coffee
To Book Your Place 14:45 SEA and Plan making: Legal update Heather Sargent, Landmark Chambers Visit our website 15:10 Habitats assessment issues on Development Plans http://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/ David Elvin QC, Landmark Chambers forthcoming_events_and_seminars 15:35 Questions & Discussion
16:00 Close
To: All consultees,
Dear Consultee,
14 February 2018
CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT: PROPOSALS TO IMPLEMENT THE FOURTH LIST OF INDICATIVE OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMIT VALUES (COMMISSION DIRECTIVE (EU) 2017/164)
The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (“the Executive”) has prepared a Consultative Document (CD) containing proposals for the implementation of Commission Directive (EU) 2017/164 which introduces the 4th list of Indicative Occupational Exposure Limit Values (IOELVs). The CD has been published on the Executive’s website at www.hseni.gov.uk/4thioelv If you would prefer a printed version, it can be obtained on request. Furthermore, if you require a more accessible format, executive summaries are available in Braille or large print, on disc or audio-cassette, or in Irish, Ulster Scots and other languages of the minority ethnic communities in Northern Ireland. To obtain a summary in one of these formats, please contact Robert Greer at the address shown overleaf.
This CD sets out the Executive’s proposals for establishing Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs) for the substances listed in the Directive, in order to implement it in Northern Ireland. WELs are set to help employers meet their legal responsibilities under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (S.R. 2003 No. 34) (as amended) which require employers to prevent, or if this is not reasonably practicable, to adequately control, their employees’ exposure to hazardous substances.
IOELVs are European legal limits that are set to protect workers in the European Union from the ill-effects of hazardous substances in the workplace. Their legal status derives from Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from
the risks related to chemical agents at work (the Chemical Agents Directive). The Executive proposes to implement the 4th list of IOELVs by approving an amendment to the legally binding Great Britain Health and Safety Executive publication: EH40/2005 Workplace Exposure Limits. This document is available on the Executive’s website (https://www.hseni.gov.uk/publications/eh402005-workplace-exposure-limits).
An impact assessment (IA) prepared for the corresponding GB proposals can be found at Annex B of the CD. This concluded that, for most of the substances, no additional costs would arise, and that implementation of the Directive would have no adverse effects on industry. However, technological challenges and associated costs for the underground mining and tunnelling industries have been recognised. The Executive is of the opinion that the analysis and considerations as set out in the GB IA can be applied to Northern Ireland on a proportionate basis where appropriate.
As regards equality of opportunity, there will be a justified differential impact on those of working age. However, there will be no adverse impact on any group.
The Executive has a statutory duty, under the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, to consult before submitting proposals for the making of the regulations to the Department for the Economy. Accordingly the Executive seeks your views on the proposals contained in the CD.
Comments should be sent by our preferred option via e-mail to:
or alternatively by post to: Robert Greer Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland 83 Ladas Drive BELFAST BT6 9FR Telephone: (028) 9054 6817,
so as to arrive no later than noon on Friday 11 May 2018.
Please let us know if your contact details have changed in any way or if you no longer wish to receive notification of the Executive’s consultations.
Comments are invited on any matters in the CD but particularly, on the assumptions relating to costs and the conclusion there will be no adverse effect on any section 75 group.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Robert Greer ITEM 14
Ards and North Down Borough Council
Report Classification Unclassified
Council/Committee Council
Date of Meeting 28 February 2018
Responsible Director Director of Organisational Development and Administration
Responsible Head of Head of Administration Service
Date of Report 22 February 2018
File Reference CG 12172
Legislation Local Government Act (NI) 2014
Section 75 Compliant Yes ☐ No ☐ Not Applicable ☒
Subject Notices of Motion
Attachments Notices of Motion - Status Report
Please find attached a Status Report in respect of Notices of Motion.
This is a standing item on the Council agenda each month and its aim is to keep members updated on the outcome of motions. Please note that as each motion is dealt with it will be removed from the report.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council notes the report.
NOTICE OF MOTIONS UPDATE – FEBRUARY 2018
TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE 07/11/14 Investigate concept behind Councillor 04/12/14 Governance Agreed Ongoing innovation lab Walker 18.12.14 29/03/15 To ask officers to draft a Councillor 29/04/15 Council Agreed Ongoing Community Charter for the Barry 27.05.15 & 26.08.15 new Council 31/05/15 Permanent recognition of Councillor 24/06/15 Corporate Services Agreed Ongoing Rory McIlroy in Holywood Muir 13.10.15 28/2/17 War Memorial – Conlig Councillors Council Corporate Services Agreed in Ongoing Barry and March Committee April principle Woods 2017 2017 pending report 30.5.17 Flexible closing times of Councillor June 2017 Environment Agreed March 2018 public toilets Chambers Committee Sept 2017 7.7.17 Sunday Trading Legislation Councillor July 2017 Environment Agreed January 2018 Deferred for Boyle and Committee further review September 2017
Page 1 of 7
TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE Alderman Carson 18.7.17 Equity in the provision of Councillor July 2017 Community & Agreed Interim report Further report Christmas festivities in the Smith Wellbeing Jan 2018 March 2018 Borough September 2017 18.7.17 Don’t Mow, Let it Grow Councillor July 2017 Community & Agreed March 2018 programme Douglas Wellbeing Committee September 2017 18.7.17 Restoration of historic Market Councillors July 2017 Community & Agreed Moved to Cross in Newtownards McIlveen, Wellbeing Environment Kennedy Committee Committee and September 2017 March 2018 Armstrong- Cotter 30/8/17 Creating an inclusive beach Councillor Council – Community & Agreed Interim report Further report Robinson Sept 2017 Wellbeing March 2018 June 2018 Committee – October 17 5/9/17 Provision of a dog park in Councillor Council – Environment Agreed February Pending Bangor Robinson Sept 2017 Committee – 2018 ratification by October 2017 Council in Feb 2018 7/9/17 Upgrading the promenade at Councillor Council – Regeneration and Agreed February Pending Ballyholme Douglas Sept 2017 Development 2018 ratification by
Page 2 of 7
TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE Committee – Council in October 2017 Feb 2018 3/10/17 Foodbanks and distribution Councillors Council – Community & Agreed June 2018 Centres Woods Oct 2017 Wellbeing and Barry Committee – November 2017 16/10/17 Introduction of the CDL Councillors Council – Environment Agreed February Pending scheme Barry and Oct 2017 Committee – 2018 ratification by Woods November 2017 Council in Feb 2018 18/10/17 Charging points for electric Councillor Council – Environment Deferred to March 2018 vehicles McIlveen Nov 2017 Committee – EC – January December 2017 2018 09/11/17 Rescinding letters of comfort Councillor Council – Corporate Services Amended Letter sent and royal pardons Cooper Nov 2017 Committee – and Agreed December 2017 09/11/17 Veterans of HM Forces, and Councillor Council – Corporate Services Amended RUC/PSNI, being given Cooper Nov 2017 Committee – and agreed at Letters sent priority in housing December 2017 Council (fell) December 2017 09/11/17 Harmonisation of salaries and Councillor Council – Corporate Services Amended April 2018 job responsibilities Cooper Nov 2017 Committee – and agreed December 2017
Page 3 of 7
TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE 09/11/17 Opposes any attempt, under Councillor Council – Corporate Services Agreed Letter sent any legislative guise, to make Cooper Nov 2017 Committee – Irish an official language in December 2017 Northern Ireland 15/11/17 Introduction of sign language Councillor Council – Corporate Services Agreed Letter sent being taught in our primary Cooper Nov 2017 Committee – schools December 2017
21/11/17 Traffic calming measures Councillor Council – Corporate Services Agreed Letter sent around Donaghadee Primary Smith Nov 2017 Committee – School December 2017 21/11/17 Identified Mental health as a Councillor Council – Community & Agreed June 2018 growing area of concern Smart Nov 2017 Wellbeing Committee – December 2017 22/11/17 Upgrading floodlights in Councillor Council – Environment Agreed April 2018 Comber Square Cummings Nov 2017 Committee – December 2017 22/11/17 Carparking in residential Councillor Council – Corporate Services Agreed Letter sent areas in Newtownards McIlveen Nov 2017 Committee – December 2017
Page 4 of 7
TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE 22/11/17 Sight lines at gas works, Councillor Council – Environment Deferred to Completed Newtownards McIlveen Nov 2017 Committee – EC – January December 2017 2018 22/11/17 Double yellow lines at Councillor Council – Environment Deferred to Letter sent Londonderry Park McIlveen Nov 2017 Committee – EC – January December 2017 2018 23/11/17 Assessment for Personal Councillors Council – Corporate Services Letters Independence Payment Boyle, Dec 2017 Committee – written causing severe stress Menagh January 2018 and Barry 30/11/17 Increasing glass collections Councillor Council – Environment February Awaiting from monthly to fortnightly Robinson Dec 2017 Committee – 2018 ratification by January 2018 council in Feb 2018 30/11/17 Review of policy towards bin Councillors Council – Environment March 2018 provision/waste management Woods Dec 2017 Committee – – installation of sanitary bins and Barry January 2018 in every public toilet 1/12/17 "People's Proposal" - Councillors Council – Corporate Services Letters introducing a checklist for Douglas Dec 2017 Committee – written social security decision and Barry January 2018 makers. 11/12/17 Street cleaning services in Councillors Council – Environment April 2018 residential areas close to Cathcart Dec 2017 Committee – urban centres January 2018
Page 5 of 7
TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE and Kennedy 8/12/17 Feasibility of a Royal Navy Councillor Council – Corporate Services agreed April 2018 Ship being present during the Martin Dec 2017 Committee – period of Remembrance January 2018 2/1/18 Civic Reception - Centenary Alderman Council - Corporate Services agreed Awaiting of Bangor Football Club 2018 Irvine January Committee – ratification by 2018 February 2018 council in Feb 2018 5/1/18 Condemnation of paramilitary Councillors Council - Corporate Services Amended Awaiting style assaults and affirmation Wilson and January Committee – and agreed ratification by of the agencies of the Rule of McAlpine 2018 February 2018 council in Feb Law 2018 10/1/18 Consultation with Millisle and Councillor Council – Environment Awaiting Ballycopeland Presbyterian Thompson January Committee – ratification by Church about memorial to 2018 February 2018 council in Feb missionary Amy Carmichael 2018 15/1/18 ‘Refill Ards and North Down’ Councillors Council – Environment Awaiting – reusable water bottles Woods, January Committee – ratification by Barry and 2018 February 2018 council in Robinson Febr 2018 15/1/18 Redevelopment of Kinnegar Alderman Council – Regeneration & Awaiting Logistics Base McDowell January Development ratification by and 2018 Committee – council in Feb February 2018 2018
Page 6 of 7
TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE Councillor Muir 16/1/18 Orlock Road, Groomsport – Councillor Council – Corporate Services Amended Awaiting restoration of 30 mph speed Chambers January Committee – and agreed ratification by limit 2018 February 2018 council in Feb 2018 18/1/18 “Is Angela Working?” Councillor Council – Community & Awaiting Initiative Cooper January Wellbeing ratification by 2018 Committee – council in Feb February 2018 2018 23/1/18 Programme for Cleansing of Councillors Council – Environment Awaiting Public Realm in Donaghadee T Smith and January Committee – ratification by Brooks 2018 February 2018 council in Feb 2018 23/1/18 Public Sector Workplace Councillor Council – Corporate Services agreed Awaiting Charging Scheme – electric McIlveen January Committee – ratification by vehicles 2018 February 2018 council in Feb 2018
Page 7 of 7
Unclassified
ITEM 16
Ards and North Down Borough Council
Report Classification Unclassified
Council/Committee Council
Date of Meeting 28 February 2018
Responsible Director Chief Executive
Responsible Head of Service
Date of Report 22 February 2018
File Reference DS25
Legislation
Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Not Applicable ☐
Subject Battle of the Somme Anniversary Commemoration
Attachments
The 102nd anniversary of the Battle of the Somme will be commemorated at the Ulster Memorial Tower, Thiepval, France, on 1st July 2018.
The Somme Association up to the Centenary Year in 2016 had organised an annual Somme Pilgrimage to the commemoration.
The Council had participated in this visit and where wreaths were laid in memory of those from the Borough who fell at the Battle. The services at the Thiepval Memorial, Ulster Tower and Guillemont were attended along with Cemeteries on the former battlefield.
In 2017 the Mayor and an Officer travelled to the Commemoration independently and, as there is no formal Pilgrimage again in 2018, the Council should consider attendance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council approves the attendance of the Mayor and considers the nomination of other Members, to be supported by a Council Officer, to attend the Battle of the Somme Commemoration services on 1 July 2018 to lay wreaths on behalf of the Borough.
Page 1 of 1