A previously-approved decision to erect English and Irish language street signs in Portadown has now been deferred for a ‘legal workshop’ – with one local councillor warning ratepayers could be landed with a bill of up to £250,000 if the issue is forced before the courts.
Two requests for dual language signs were recently approved at ABC Council’s planning and regulatory services committee.
Objections from Loyal Orders who use Corcrain Orange Hall had been furnished to the committee at that time, but the requests – relating to Corcrain Gardens and Ballyoran Hill – were passed, with council using discretionary powers to approve
both.
Now, in a dramatic twist – and one which some councillors argued was unprecedented and not in keeping with standing orders – the matter has been effectively put ‘on hold’ after a recorded vote.
The street signage sequel played out at the monthly meeting of ABC Council and the decision to defer taken after a recorded vote.
It was DUP Councillor Kyle Moutray who raised it, saying: “In the meeting, I had articulated a concern that four separate objections were made and submitted to the committee. They came from a Royal Black Perceptory, a cultural and development association, and an Orange Lodge, who each based themselves out of Corcrain Orange Hall, which is in close proximity to each of these signage applications.
“These objections have cited concerns for the potential divisive nature of erecting signage, that it may make sections of the community feel unwelcome and a sense of unease. They feel that dual language signage has potential to heighten tensions and it could be detrimental to community relations. That’s what they had articulated in the letters submitted to the committee.
“I’m obviously cognisant of the fact that there has been quite a bit of work in this particular area with regard to peace building and there has been relative stability in that area in recent years, and I think that the concerns that are being put forward, there’s a lot of people worried that this has the potential to undo that.
“So based on previous legal advice taken from the 2014 court case and our own experience in considering previous applications, members have been advised to take account of other lawful considerations, and whilst these objections were not surveyed houses on these streets, they are still lawful considerations within the area.
“So both applications are not ultimately far from meeting the threshold. They do meet it, and I recognise that the policy has been met. But I still feel we have to apply weight to the objections that have been presented and not rush into a judgement, not to bypass those other considerations.
“On this basis, I would propose that this decision is deferred for a legal workshop to discuss lawful considerations based on the 2014 court case. We could have further exploration of that before a decision is made.”
After a very brief recess under confidential business, the meeting resumed, with DUP Councillor Scott Armstrong seconding the proposal.
He said he had “reservations” around council using its discretionary powers to approve dual language signage in both Corcrain Gardens and Ballyoran Hill.
Said Councillor Armstrong: “There has been numerous separate objections that have been received from community groups and organisations within the locality, citing concerns on the potential divisive nature of the erection of signage and the potential of heightening community tensions in the area.
“The scars of previous incidents of community tensions are still seen with the peace walls, although they have been altered slightly in the last couple of months. And the fact that the Orange Hall itself is adorned in steel protections, even the windows, and even the outside of it, my fear is that if we don’t take their objections on board and we don’t explore the possibilities of what lawful considerations are, we are going against legal advice and previous court cases on this.
“So I would like a workshop, open to councillors, regarding what are our lawful considerations based on that 2014 court case.”
Alliance Councillor Peter Lavery said he was “really disappointed” to have to “go over this again”.
He insisted the objectors’ comments “were not bypassed”, adding: “They were taken on board, as was the responses from the residents in question. Both of these applications surpassed the two-thirds majority and, in my view, I placed the overriding view that the residents’ view should be taken into account and these dual language street signs progressed.
“At the meeting, I pointed out that this area of Portadown is diverse. That’s a good thing. This dual language signage application, beside an Orange Hall, is reflective of the diversity on that street, the diversity in Portadown and the diversity in the borough as a whole. That’s the strength we have as a borough.
“So I’d be really disappointed by some of the comments that have been made talking about heightening tensions, talking about all these other things, which is distracting from the debate and the actual decision itself in terms of a pretty straightforward dual language street sign.”
Councillor Lavery also highlighted his concerns over the potential costs of the matter going before the courts, based on previous experience.
“It would just mean there’s a small sign on the street beside the Loyal Orange Lodge, which is in English and Irish, and I think that just reflects the diversity of the area,” he added. “Another growing concern I have is the potential for a legal case if our decisions on these signs are deferred or indeed voted down.
“It was discussed at the meeting that the last time a dual language street sign application that met the two thirds majority was improperly voted down, it cost the ratepayers of this borough £90,000 in legal fees, paid for by the ratepayers. Now we have two signs. Is that going to be £180,000, £200,000, paid by the ratepayer? It’s really disappointing.”
Sinn Fein Councillor Paul Duffy highlighted the importance of dual language street signage in terms of what it represents.
And he too raised concerns around potential legal costs.
“This is a physical manifestation of equality, undoing decades of exclusion and marginalisation,” said Councillor Duffy. “Dual language signage demonstrates that our borough is shared by various groups of the population, that we cherish our native language, from which the vast majority of our place names derive, whilst also catering for and recognising the thousands of people who have a desire to use the language in public. It has no impact on those who don’t want to engage with it.
“No rights exist in domestic or international law not to see a language. However, denial of the Irish language on signage is a denial of rights.”
Referencing the potential legal costs quoted by Councillor Lavery, the Sinn Fein representative warned of “very, very strong possibilities of surcharges on councillors”.
“There is maybe even up to a quarter of a million, because this never actually got into court for the full hearing,” he added. “The judge, from what I heard, was very disappointed in the council and the council’s handling of this.
“Now, not too far from this, there was a peace wall. The peace wall was reduced in size, reimaged by a lot of good cross-community work. To say that the likes of this signage is going to impact on things, there is no grounds to this whatsoever.”
Close to 40 minutes was spent in further confidential business and a clarification came from Councillor Kyle Moutray on his proposal, for “a legal workshop to discuss how members take on board the weighting and lawful considerations where strong objections are made by those who are not residents”.
When put to the vote, the proposal was passed, by 19 to 16, with one abstention.
That done, Alliance Councillor Robbie Alexander remarked: “I find it highly irregular what has just happened. A vote was opened, while the vote was opened clarification was sought from the proposer. At that point, we adjourned. While the vote was still opened, clarification was sought a second time.
“ I do not think we have followed standing orders here with this. I think the fact that we were voting on this anyway, something that was already decided in PRC, is highly irregular and the events after that again were not something I’ve ever seen in this council.
“I want it noted in the minutes, my displeasure to everything that has just happened in the last 5 or 10 minutes. I do not believe we’ve followed standings orders and I am not happy.”
Sinn Fein’s Paul Duffy asked if the legal workshop which had been voted for could be held before the next planning committee.
SDLP Councillor Thomas O’Hanlon, meanwhile, was also not happy with developments.
“I too want my concerns noted around a vote being opened, clarification being sought twice, adjournments in the middle of it…that has never happened in my time on council here,” he said. “In fairness, I’d like to get some advice in terms of the legal standing of that process that actually just happened.”
DUP Alderman Mark Baxter said he thought those councillors voicing concerns after the vote were “getting a bit excited about it”.
“Members were given ample opportunity to vote and the clarification was sought,” he said. “I don’t really think it’s that big an issue.”
Lord Mayor Stephen Moutray called time on the debate.
“I don’t think we’re going to achieve anything more elongating this,” he said. “We are where we are. I felt it was important to get things clarified before the vote was closed. We did that. Members had their opportunity and they voted.”
