Despite the fact that 82 per cent of residents in Churchill Gardens, in Portadown, want bilingual Irish-English street signage erected in their residential development – well in excess of the two-thirds majority required – the matter was recently deferred to next Monday’s (February 24) full ABC Council meeting for consideration.
The agenda item was debated at length at a Planning & Regulatory Services committee meeting held on February 5, with DUP representatives clearly at odds with their Alliance and Sinn Féin counterparts on the issue.
In proposing that the ABC Council uses its discretionary powers to approve dual-language street signage, Councillor Paul Duffy (Sinn Féin, Portadown DEA) referred to Woodside Hill, where the wishes of the residents – who were very much in favour of dual-language signage – were disregarded, prompting ongoing legal action against ABC Council.
He stated at the committee meeting: “We’ve been here before, a lot of legal costs, ongoing court cases, [we] don’t know when the verdict is going to come out on that.
“I don’t see a problem with this, the majority of people are in favour, this Council should be doing the right thing instead of dragging it out again.
“We should recommend this decision and just move on.”
Seconding the proposal for bilingual signage at Churchill Gardens, committee vice-chair, Councillor Peter Lavery (Alliance, Lurgan DEA) said: “Of the 57 respondents, 47 responded in favour, which is 82%, well above the 66% threshold required for a positive outcome, and as such I think we should adhere to the wishes of the strong majority of residents who clearly want this additional signage.”
Incidentally, the relevant agenda item explains that there is currently no street signage at Churchill Gardens, so any bilingual signage would not replace existing one.
Alderman Gareth Wilson (DUP, Cusher DEA) made it clear that he needed more time to consider the matter more fully.
He noted, in particular, that some residents had added comments – either for or against – on their survey forms, and that there was one particular household where differing views had been expressed.
He stated: “I’m going to make no apology for this. It’ll be no surprise probably to members that I am going to make a proposal, and it’ll be one where given that there were a number of responders who had additional comments both for and against, I would like to have a copy of those, and would also make a proposal that we are provided by email with a copy of those representations, because I would like to speak to my council group about this issue.
“I would like to do that as soon as possible as well. I don’t want to be seen to be delaying things unnecessarily.
“I want to be fully aware of all the facts before I make my own decision.
“I would like a period of time to chat to my fellow councillors, because I’m not a Portadown representative and our applications so far have been Portadown ward-centric.”
Seconding Alderman Wilson’s proposal, Councillor Kyle Moutray (DUP, Portadown DEA) said: “I think it’s important that we as a committee consider all responses that have been given following the canvassing exercise, and that we consider them in their entirety.”
Cllr Lavery, however, was highly critical of his DUP committee colleagues’ stance: “More delaying tactics. We have the responses and we can view them now, so I don’t understand why they need to be circulated to all our members not on this committee.”
Ald Wilson insisted that he was following proper procedure: “It is far from a delaying tactic, I’m exercising what the law states that we should exercise, so if we’re going to reach a decision in about eight seconds, to me that’s not giving full consideration.
“I don’t buy what Cllr Lavery is saying on this issue, I won’t be moved on my position on this, I want to fully consider this, so I’m not backing down on that.
“To say that we can’t talk to other councillors about it whenever it goes to full Council just seems ridiculous to me.”
Head of Building Control, Tom Lavery explained that the comments made by some of the residents could be viewed as a confidential item, to respect the private nature of those remarks. The video feed was then switched off.
Less than five minutes later, the live video feed was restored, and the debate continued.
A vote was taken on Councillor Paul Duffy’s proposal to approve the request for dual-language street signage without further ado.
Voting in favour of Cllr Duffy’s proposal were – aside from Cllr Duffy himself – Cllr Lavery (Alliance), Councillor Fergal Donnelly (SF), Councillor Mary O’Dowd (SF), Councillor Kevin Savage (SF).
Voting against the proposal were committee chair, Councillor Scott Armstrong (DUP), Councillor Kyle Moutray (DUP), Councillor Alan Mulholland (DUP), Alderman Gareth Wilson (DUP), Councillor Ian Wilson (DUP).
Alderman Gordon Kennedy (UUP) abstained.
Although there was an equal number of votes for and against – five in each case – the proposal fell as committee chair, Cllr Armstrong had cast the deciding vote against it.
