Alliance councillors found themselves isolated over a notice of motion calling on the local authority to explore ways to possibly reacquire land sold off to the Southern Regional College (SRC) in the Craigavon Lakes area.
A decision to grant planning permission for a £45m SRC college on the site in question was successfully challenged some weeks ago by a local resident, and Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon (ABC) Borough Council are currently reviewing that court ruling, with a view to considering their options.
While Alliance councillor Robbie Alexander (Craigavon DEA) insisted he had been justified in tabling his motion, other councillors claimed he had disregarded clear legal guidance from the council at what is a sensitive stage for the local authority.
At one stage, council went into recess for a full 47 minutes, so that legal issues surrounding any move to reacquire the land in question could be discussed behind closed doors.
Such is the sensitivity of the motion tabled by the Alliance councillor, that 11 members of the Planning & Regulatory Services committee – out of 14 – elected to leave the chamber at that stage, namely Cllr Kevin Savage, Cllr Ian Wilson, Cllr Mary O’Dowd, Cllr Julie Flaherty, Ald Gordon Kennedy, Cllr Scott Armstrong, Cllr Fergal Donnelly, Cllr Alan Mulholland, Cllr Paul Duffy, Cllr Kyle Moutray, and Cllr John Óg O’Kane.
Cllr Alexander said he was bringing the motion forward, because “I believe we have a significant opportunity, one that could shape the future of Craigavon Lakes and ensure that this unique space continues to serve our community in the best way possible”.
He added: “The Southern Regional College currently owns a parcel of land at the Lakes upon which they planned educational development. However, the decision in the courts to rightfully overturn the planning approval made in 2019, means that the circumstances for the college have materially changed…
“My motion this evening does not commit us today to any purchase. It does not set financial decisions in stone. What it does is ask the council to formally engage with Southern Regional College, assess the feasibility and understand the options available to us.”
Cllr Kate Evans (UUP, Craigavon DEA) regretted that no legal provision had been built into the terms of the sale to allow ABC Council to claim back the Craigavon Lakes site: “Whilst I do agree with the motion and getting the land back into our ownership, it would be remiss of me not to bring up the fact that when this land was going to be sold, councillors sitting in this very chamber asked that there be something put into it to allow us to recoup the land back, if the building did not go ahead.
“And it’s disappointing to know that what councillors asked for in this chamber didn’t even go into the agreement. That’s a massive failing on behalf of this council.”
Ald Mark Baxter (DUP, Lagan River DEA) was highly critical of the fact that the land purchase issue was being raised publicly: “Whilst I understand why members would bring a motion, I think it’s probably a bit ill-thought-out.
“We will not support the motion tonight. I think it undermines confidence in the council’s decision-making process. I think it would damage our credibility and potentially expose the council and ratepayers to significant financial liability.
“From a capital point of view, we can’t spend any more money until 2035, but yet an ad hoc paper comes to council tonight to commit us to spend potentially. I think it’s probably more about grandstanding bringing it to the chamber.
“Ironically, the minister in charge at the time said it was a fantastic opportunity for young people, and he was very much promoting how good a site this would be for an SRC [campus].
“Guess who the minister was? Dr. Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party. So I think it’s quite ironic tonight that the Alliance Party are saying we should buy it back.”
Cllr Catherine Nelson (SF, Craigavon DEA) was anxious to stress that some legal work is actually being done behind the scenes: “We are supportive of the sentiment of the motion. My issue is that it is suggesting that we’re not working on this, and I think that’s simply not true.
“It’s perhaps a little bit of electioneering from a party failing to break ground in central Craigavon, trying to maybe become a little bit more relevant.
“Alliance may not be talking to SRC in the background, but SF certainly are. We have had a workshop, and officers have gone off with a piece of work around designating the land as either a local nature reserve, or looking at protecting it in perpetuity.
“We have also had legal advice around the fact that it’s a complex land question. [There is also] the fact that the North Lake is something that we have protected since 2009.
“So, I just think it’s unfair to suggest that we’re doing nothing. I think it’s not honest with those watching, and that’s why it does smack a little bit of electioneering. But, that said, we will support the motion. I think simply we could have just asked officers for an update of where things are currently at.
“I’m just a wee bit concerned that if SRC are now watching, they know that we may now wish to buy this, and that will create a very different conversation when it comes to looking at a sale.”
Cllr Thomas O’Hanlon (SDLP, Armagh DEA) also took the view that officers should have been consulted ahead of any move to table a motion: “I would share some of the concerns of other members. Whenever officers are coming back, I think it would be useful to get some factual accuracy.
“Like Cllr Nelson, I would have preferred it if officers had been asked for an update and a full paper brought back in advance of whatever moves you wanted to take. I think that would have been a better approach.”
Councillors then decided to go into committee at that stage, to check some of the facts around land and sale issues.That recess lasted 47 minutes, given some of the complexities involved.
Following a long recess to seek legal advice on the most prudent way forward ahead of any move to reacquire Craigavon Lakes land sold to SRC, Councillor Robbie Alexander suggested an amendment to his motion.
He stated: “Having listened to various council officers, and having listened to all of the commentary from members, I would like to adjust the proposal by amending the last sentence to: ‘This council agrees to obtain legal advice on this proposal, and asks that a report be brought back to the relevant committee.’”
However, it appeared the legal advice sought during the recess had only comforted many councillors in their belief that bringing forward such a motion had been ill-advised – with some going as far as suggesting it had been “reckless”.
Ald Mark Baxter (DUP, Lagan River DEA) remarked: “What an unnecessary waste of the last hour. I have to say that what a complete mess.
“To bring this motion when we had to go into legal advice, from a governance point of view it was an omni-shambles. The motive behind this motion, I think, is political grandstanding.
“Something like this, in my 14 years as a councillor, I have never seen before coming as a motion. This is [normally] brought as committee papers, this is brought as working groups and discussions.
“When the original decision was made, after Minister Stephen Farry welcomed the announcement down here on the Lakes, all parties supported it around this chamber.
“But now, we’re bringing into question that very position. Yes, things have changed. I’ll tell you what has certainly changed, the value of the land tonight as a result of this. And I think now we’re talking about having to get extra legal advice. So there’s going to be more cost incurred.
“I have to say in the strongest possible terms, I think it was politically immature to bring such a motion to this chamber this evening, and I think the debacle that has surrounded it since has proven that. I still can’t support the motion in the way it’s been brought.”
Ald Baxter went on to mention the third paragraph of the motion, which refers to “the frustration from the local community”.
He remarked: “Well, if the local community is a lobby group of a couple hundred people, I can tell you a couple hundred people on the other side of the fence that are now really disappointed that a £45m investment that they felt would have enhanced that area is now not coming.
“Young people in Armagh and Banbridge [now] have first-class [SRC] facilities. What about the children in Craigavon? They don’t have any, and the prospect of them getting any now are lower than ever.
“What actually took place here tonight (…) put us all in a very difficult position this evening, and left us wide open to a litigious challenge. From a governance point of view, happy enough to have the conversation and do it in the proper way, but the way it was brought tonight was disgraceful.”
Cllr Thomas O’Hanlon (SDLP, Armagh DEA) commented: “The way things transpired tonight was cack-handed. It was very disappointing, and it put some of us in a very difficult position.
“We got very strong legal and governance advice as to why the matter couldn’t proceed in the way it was put before council. It’s also important to note that [most] of our colleagues left the room, out of the 14 who sit on the Planning committee. They exercised caution and left the room.”
Cllr Catherine Nelson (SF, Craigavon DEA) said: “We have been told as members that if we are to proceed with this motion, we need legal advice, and that leaves us very open.
“So, I’m frustrated that members have been left open like this, because that motion was known to officers prior to this evening.
“But I’m also frustrated that the Alliance Party in their political naïveté, and perhaps a little bit of inexperience, brought forward a motion that’s worded in a way that means that members are now backed into a corner, so that they can have their moment on social media.
“So, I think this has been a real sorry affair this evening. We absolutely support the sentiment of this motion, but without legal advice, as we have now been told we need, we can’t move to a decision on it. So, we will abstain until the legal advice is brought before us.”
Ald Paul Berry (Independent, Cusher DEA) said: “Based on the clear, concise advice from the head of Planning for this council area, and the serious governance issues that this would cause the council, I would be voting against this tonight.
“I believe that the Alliance Party should have done more homework, they should have been in more conversations and discussions with senior officers before such an ill-thought-out and reckless motion was brought, and then they may have got some more support tonight in the chamber.
“I would call on the Alliance Party to withdraw this on the grounds of good governance.”
Concluding, as the proposer of the motion, Cllr Alexander said: “I think plenty has been said. I am very clear on where I stand on this matter. I was more than happy to bring this motion, but I have heard what other members have said. I fully take it on board.
“I do believe that this was right to bring this before council this evening. I will leave it there.”
A recorded vote was then taken, with four votes in favour of the original motion, 14 against, and seven abstaining. In favour were the four Alliance representatives, namely Cllr Alexander, Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr Johnson, Cllr Joy Ferguson, and Cllr Peter Lavery.
Voting against were Lord Mayor, Ald Stephen Moutray (DUP), Ald Glenn Barr (UUP), Ald Baxter (DUP), Ald Berry (Independent), Cllr Kate Evans (UUP), Ald Paul Greenfield (DUP), Cllr Peter Haire (DUP), Cllr Tim McClelland (DUP), Cllr Lavelle McIlwrath (DUP), Cllr O’Hanlon (SDLP), Ald Paul Rankin (DUP), Cllr Keith Ratcliffe (TUV), Cllr Kyle Savage (UUP), and Ald Margaret Tinsley (DUP).
Abstaining were SF representatives, Cllr Sarah Duffy, Cllr Bróna Haughey, Cllr Keith Haughian, Cllr Liam Mackle, Cllr Jude Mallon, Cllr Chris McCartan, and Cllr Nelson.
