ABC Council has agreed to launch a new £70,000 shopfront paint scheme right across the borough.
While there were no ‘emulsion-al’ outbursts, there were however concerns raised by some that the funding would see such a scheme “over-subscribed”.
And that said, they felt it could ‘paint’ a negative picture, something they simply could not ‘gloss’ over and were not prepared to ‘brush’ to one side.
All was going swimmingly at ABC Council’s economic development committee when a paper detailing plans was presented.
Infrastructure and economic development manager Elaine Cullen outlined the intention to use £70,000 from budget for the scheme in the next financial year.
“Officers are proposing that grants will be offered to a maximum of 50% of the total eligible costs, with a minimum grant of £500 pounds and a maximum grant of £1,500,” she explained.
It was, she said, something which would “help improve the appearance of commercial properties – and residential properties above businesses if funding is available – that front the streetscape in towns and villages”.
In all, 46 businesses were expected to receive funding, drawn from all towns and villages across the area.
And looking at the maths, that’s where the questions began to surface.
There was of course a resounding welcome that such a scheme was in the pipeline.
Alderman Ian Burns proposed accepting the works paper, saying: “We have seen lots of work and environmental improvement schemes throughout the borough this past number of years and I think all the towns are looking well. Businesses are at times getting it tight, so I think the fact that we can help them to invest in their own properties is a great deal. So I’m happy to propose.”
And Ulster Unionist Councillor Julie Flaherty – who was particularly glad to see Loughgall on the list of eligible areas – added: “I’m more than happy to second this. It’ll be just lovely to see a fresh look to our high streets and villages, particularly the villages.”
“It maybe seems like a smallish thing to some but it can make such a huge difference,” said Councillor Flaherty. “I think that’s a great stop for some of these businesses, and they’ll be really delighted and you’ll be inundated, I can guarantee.”
Alliance Councillor Peter Lavery said he too anticipated it being a “very popular scheme indeed” and one which would be “over-subscribed”.
And enquiring of the planned timeline, he was informed by the officer: “We are keen to get the scheme launched at the end of May, early June. We’re very mindful that it’s the summer months when the painting needs to take place. If members are in agreement tonight and it goes through full council, we will be happy to get it issued and launched as soon as possible.”
DUP Councillor Kyle Savage also welcomed the news and stated: “If we can get it done in the summertime, it will be really good to get into those areas that have not got any funding before. I know there’s other areas have been able to access that in the past, but I think a priority should be given to those areas that have never got any funding before.”
Alderman Paul Greenfield queried whether the scheme could be extended beyond 2026/27 to give as wide a window as possible for people to apply.
And he added: “ I do think we will have certainly a massive uptake for it. I know quite a few people have been asking about this, and it’s great to see other smaller areas, like Loughbrickland and Poyntzpass, being able to put in for it.”
Independent Unionist Paul Berry said: “The likes of this here is vital and it’s one of those things that people see as a real positivity.”
But he was worried about how far that £70,000 would stretch, and asked if Markethill, Gilford and Rathfriland – all of which are subject to ongoing environmental improvement schemes for which funding was previously approved – would be included.
“Are they going to be separate to this? Because I know in other environmental schemes in the past, those towns that were having environmental schemes automatically had a shopfront scheme in relation to paint and stuff,” said Alderman Berry. “Are we going to club them in with the others, which I think would be unfair, because if we’re doing those street schemes in those three different areas, I think it would be good to see that, when we’re spending that money and the Department is spending that money, those smaller rural town centres are focussed on specifically because of that.”
Referencing the breakdown of 46 businesses – 26 urban and 20 rural – he pointed out: “We have about six main towns and we have 21 town/villages, so that would tell me that only one in each town or village would be eligible which I think would be grossly unfair.
“Whilst I support this and I’m happy to support this tonight, I don’t think it goes far enough. That’s not your problem. That’s a problem for us to come up with finance. I do notice in your report, you said that further businesses will be supported for additional funding if it becomes available. I would just be deeply concerned that there will be a big uptake in this.
“Even in any town that I know of in my DEA, there’ll be at least five to six businesses that would avail of this and immediately there’ll be a couple of towns and that’s it. They’ll be wiped out. So I would fear that there could be a bit of bad press as a result of this, because so many businesses will take the time to apply for this and then not be successful.
“All of them are named here. It’s brilliant. It looks great. And I get where you’re coming from. But I just think we can’t be restrictive in relation to the uptake, because if five or six in each of those towns get it, they haven’t a chance, because there’s only going to be 20 rural businesses that are going to avail of this.”
Alderman Berry added: “I think there has to be an element of fairness there in relation to that and, while I’m happy to let this go through tonight, I still think there needs to be maybe a wee bit more working on it in relation to the budget. That’s not your fault and I’m not saying that one iota. It’s for us to consider as councillors. Do we want to put a scheme out there, where quite a number of businesses that apply could potentially be unsuccessful because of the restrictive budget that is here for this?
“It’s so positive, you get that, you know that, and your staff know that, and we get that as councillors, but I don’t want it to be that restrictive that it ends up one in every town gets their shopfront painted and the rest are just, ‘continue to pay your high rates, have a lovely time’, because that’s the reality of it.”
Ms Cullen agreed that the budget was “very tight” but confirmed: “We are going to have to look at other funding opportunities, both within council and externally. We are proposing to look at the need around how many people are applying and then we will look at other funding opportunities and bring that back to members for further consideration.
“ In terms of the villages, for the EI schemes, they will be treated the exact same way and they are eligible to apply under the scheme and they’ll be treated accordingly like everyone else.”
Alderman Berry again expressed his fear that “it could turn into a negative if we don’t do it right”.
“In the EI schemes that were previously done in the towns, like Richhill and Keady and Tandragee, and others down through the years, was this particular shopfront paint scheme included in those environmental improvement schemes? Because I think it would be unfair, that we are throwing them into the pot when £500,000 is being spent in each town and village in these three areas,” he said. “And we need to give them a bit of an uplift for a small amount of money that we’re talking about. It’s just, I think, something we do need to consider.”
Ms Cullen said she was “happy to look at other funding opportunities for those particular areas and bring further information back”.
SDLP Councillor Thomas O’Hanlon agreed in relation to the inclusion of Markethill, Gilford and Rathfriland.
“They should be benefitting from this separately to this and that’s the way it historically has been done,” he explained. “It was always built into the original programmes. For example, the Keady and Richhill schemes, it was £750, it was 100% funded. And to be honest, I actually think it gave more impact than the bigger shopfront schemes, because it gave immediate impact. It gave employment locally to painters. It meant that you couldn’t get the painter for love nor money when you were looking something done around the house.
“So I would ask officers to go back and have a look to see if there’s a way that those three particular areas can be funded separately. That will ease pressure on this overall scheme.”
Councillor O’Hanlon also proposed writing to the Departments of Communities and Agriculture “to see if they can put any money into this pot”.
“I genuinely think this will be a substantially oversubscribed and, to be honest, it will give a real impact whenever you see it in towns and villages,” he said. “So I propose that we write to those two funders now and try and engage with them immediately and try and boost this pot as quickly as possible.”
Councillor O’Hanlon also proposed that “separate funding” is made available for Markethill, Gilford and Rathfriland, “in line with what we have done historically”.
Paul Tamati, director of development and community and wellbeing, agreed to contact DfC to see if any “underspends” in relation to the environmental improvement schemes could be used to fund shopfront paint schemes in those three areas.
On a separate note, Sinn Fein Councillor Jude Mallon, seeking clarity in terms of eligibility, said Craigavon did not have a town centre as such and enquired if shops at Drumgor, Tullygally and Legahory would be able to apply.
“Yes, as long as it has a streetscape and it has a number of shops it’s eligible to apply,” was the response
