Agenda and minutes

Apologies for inability to attend were reported from Councillors Hussey and Mac Giolla Mhín.

The minutes of the meetings of 1st, 8th and 23rd March were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 3rd April, subject to the amendment of the minute of 8th March under the heading “Appointments to the Belfast Education and Library Board” to provide that the Minister for Education be requested to appoint the four current nominees from the Council who have successfully passed the eligibility sift.

The Committee noted the contents of a report in relation to a Study Visit which had been undertaken to Dublin on 24th August.  The report gave details of the visits to Waterways Ireland, the Convention Centre, the Digital Hub and a courtesy meeting with the Deputy Lord Mayor of Dublin.

            After discussion, the Committee agreed to extend an invitation to representatives of Dublin City Council to undertake a Study Visit to Belfast.

The Director of Development submitted for the Committee’s consideration the undernoted report:

“1     Purpose

1.1    The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on the capital costs associated with the proposed construction of a new Conference and Exhibition Centre which the Council is seeking to develop as an extension to the Waterfront Hall.

2       Background

2.1    The Waterfront Hall since its opening has enjoyed considerable success as a conference destination but in recent years has been losing market share in the business tourism sector. In particular it has increasingly lost out on a significant number of events from within the key market segment – the UK Association Conference Market. A Feasibility Study commissioned by BCC in 2008 indicated that the decline in market share was primarily due to the limitations of the venue, including:

·      Lack of sufficient exhibition space;

·      Inadequate breakout provision; and

·      Lack of banqueting space

2.2    Market share will continue to fall in the face of competition from newly developed and extended facilities such as Liverpool, Dublin and Edinburgh unless positive action is taken to enable Belfast to compete effectively for business.

2.3    The Feasibility Study identified the need for the following:

·      Exhibition space – meeting rooms (minimum 5) for up to 1000 people

·      Banqueting space – for up to 750 covers

·      Plenary – the existing auditorium to facilitate 2000+ people in conference mode

·      Registration and circulation space – to allow for full and safe movement

·      Ancillary spaces – kitchen services, storage, plant etc

2.4    In January 2011 the former Head of City Venues and Events was made aware of an opportunity to purchase part of the Lanyon Quay development which appeared to present an opportunity to meet the needs set out in paragraph 2.3 above.

2.5    The Development Committee at its meeting on 5 February 2011 gave approval to commission an economic appraisal and to make an application for funding to NITB. The Director of Development also approached the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and NITB to establish if European Funding could be made available for the project.

2.6    DETI indicated that the Minister would be willing to allocate £10m of the Department’s ERDF funds to the project if this were to be matched from other sources and NITB indicated a willingness to contribute £2m from its Tourism Development Scheme. In order to draw down the full ERDF allocation, a contribution of at least £8m was required from the Council. Consequently the Appraisal team were asked to develop a business case based on an affordability limit of £20m.

2.7    At the outset the Appraisal Team (RSM McClure Watters) sought technical advice from the operators of the Dublin Convention Centre to establish the operational viability of the Lanyon Quay building. It was concluded at an early stage that this option would not meet the requirements of conference operators and an alternative proposal to construct the Conference and Exhibition facility in the space between the Waterfront Hall and the Hilton Hotel, over the service yard was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2b

The Committee was reminded that the Council, as part of its Investment Programme, had identified a number of key projects to support economic growth within the City.  Included within those projects was a proposal to deliver a “Digital Hub” to support growth and generate employment within the digital industries sector.  At its meeting on 26th June, 2012, the Development Committee had agreed to commission a feasibility study to scope out the need and demand for a digital hub in Belfast and to consider the type of development that would meet the requirements of the sector as well as the preferred location for such a development.  Ekos Consulting had been appointed to carry out that work in September, 2012 and had completed their report in January, 2013.  Ekos had engaged directly with relevant businesses, as well as a range of stakeholders, including Invest NI, the Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure, Momentum (the trade body for the IT sector) and the universities and colleges.  Having established and confirmed the need and demand for a development of this nature, they had considered the relevant services and infrastructural requirements and also assessed the relative merits of a range of potential locations, including the Cathedral Quarter, Crumlin Road Gaol, the Northern Ireland Science Park, the Gasworks Business Park, Springvale and Weaver’s Court.

            The Director of Development reported that the outcome of the feasibility study had been presented in a report to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee at its meeting on 22nd February.  The report had confirmed the viability of the proposed scheme and noted that the Cathedral Quarter was the preferred location, as referenced by the various stakeholders and businesses consulted.  On the basis of the feasibility study, Members were asked to agree to the development of a business case and a funding application to Invest NI for the creation of a Digital Hub in the Cathedral Quarter.  Following discussion on the report, the Committee had requested that additional information on the relative assessments of all the location options be presented through party briefings and those had taken place during March and early April.

            In the interim, officers had been in contact with Invest NI to clarify the implications for the potential funding availability for the scheme, given that the original submission deadline had been 28th February, 2013.  Invest NI staff had confirmed that they would be willing to consider an application if it was submitted by the end of April, 2013.  However, they felt that an application submitted after that point was unlikely to be considered, given the time required to progress and process the application and the need to have a letter of offer in place by the end of 2013.  Given also that 75% of the funding for the scheme would come from Invest NI, that decision was critical to the financial feasibility of the scheme.  Accordingly, the Director submitted a report which recapped on some of the issues discussed at the party briefings and which sought a decision from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2c

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

           “Purpose of Report

           The purpose of this report is to provide an overview for Members of the proposed approach to the development and delivery of the 2014/15 - 2015/16 Efficiency Programme to meet the target of  £20m by 2015/16.

           Background

           The Strategic Policy and Resources Committee (SP&R) on 15 April 2011 agreed an indicative efficiency target of £2m per year for the 3 years up to 2015/16 to ensure that a total of £20m of efficiencies are realised by that date. The efficiency target was a key element of the Investment Programme commitment to maintain the increase in the district rate at or below the rate of inflation over the three year period to 2015/16.

           The 2013/14 revenue estimates included £2.12m of efficiency savings arising from the efficiency programme, as against the target of £2m and this contributed to the council setting a zero district rate for 2013/14. The £2.12m of savings brought the total savings from the Efficiency Programme to £16m since 2006.

           Key Issues

           Financial Pressures

           The following pressures all contribute to making the realisation of cash savings from the efficiency programme more difficult in 2014/15 and future years. These include:-

·         The quick win efficiencies within the council have already been realised in previous years.

·         The cash savings removed in previous years have significantly reduced the budgets for expenditure on external services meaning that the major element of a number of service budgets now relate to employee costs.

·         While the implementation of improvement plans has generated cash savings, some of these savings have been redeployed to support other priority initiatives, such as improving job opportunities, and so are not available to offset against the district rate.

·         The significant capital expenditure savings in vehicle procurement arising from the review of the council’s fleet, has not resulted in a reduction in the annual capital financing budget as the savings are being used to finance the full capital expenditure commitments of the Investment Programme.

·         Transformational savings within Leisure Services will be required to support additional capital investment in the Leisure Estate rather than to offset the district rate requirements.

·         The need to consider ways to enhance income generation particularly through demand led services such as the Zoo and Belfast Castle.

           The above pressures mean that the bulk of the efficiency savings will have to come from wider business transformation / value for money projects which are complex, may require collaboration with other local authorities and public bodies and have longer lead in times.

           Approach to Efficiency programme 2014/15 - 2015/16

           The key themes of the efficiency programme, and the associated projects, will continue to be based on the HM Treasury Guidance and these are:-

·         Procurement

·         Assets & Land

·         Budgetary Challenge

·         ICT

·         Income Generation

·         Service Reviews/Employee Costs

           Current Projects in Progress

           The Efficiency Unit is currently supporting the implementation of improvement programmes following the completion of the Value for Money (VFM) reviews in the thematic areas of Procurement & Fleet. Both of these projects have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2d

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1     Relevant Background Information

1.1    In April 2012 the Strategic Policy and Resources (SP&R) Committee agreed to convene five Area Working Groups (AWGs) to support effective ‘place-shaping’ and make recommendations to SP&R Committee on capital investment decisions for the local area.

1.2    To support this work the Council established a £5 million Local Investment Fund (LIF) for investments of between £15,000 and £250,000 in the development or improvement of local assets. £100,000 was also made available to each AWG for local interventions that would add value to the capital investments made through LIF.

1.3    While LIF is a Council-led, capital investment programme it was intended that projects would be developed, and potentially delivered, by or in conjunction with local groups and partner organisations.  Members will be aware though that, as some organisations did not have the capacity to develop detailed proposals or experience of capital works, it was agreed by Council (3rd September 2012) that Council could undertake project delivery if required. 

1.4    LIF proposals have now been developed by each AWG and currently 60 individual projects have been offered ‘support in principle’ from this Committee. Officers and Members are working closely with responsible groups/organisations to put in place formal agreements to allow works to commence and it is anticipated that by May 2013 one-third will have received formal funding agreements; representing a contribution of over £1 million.

1.5    The following report therefore contains:

1.      recommendations regarding the use of accompanying intervention funding

2.      proposals to expedite the delivery of projects; and

3.      a proposal to raise awareness of the Council’s investment through LIF

2       Key Issues

         Local Intervention funding

2.1    South AWG - Since the last meeting of this Committee, the South AWG has met again and resolved that a proportion of its intervention monies be allocated to support retail initiatives in South Belfast and also agreed that the Lisburn Road Business Association should benefit through assistance from this specified resource.   

2.2    The South AWG is therefore recommending that SP&R Committee:

·   approve a sum of £50,000 out of the intervention monies for South to support a range of retail initiatives in South Belfast; and

·   that the Lisburn Road Business Association be allocated £15,000 from this retail initiative budget (on the basis that the Association provide match-funding) to enable it to employ a Development Officer

2.3    It is also suggested that the Director of Development takes this particular intervention forward given his economic development remit in the same way as the Director of Health and Environmental Services is supporting the community safety intervention in west Belfast.

2.4    East AWG - Members should also note that the East Belfast Area Working Group intend to meet just before the Strategic Policy and Resources committee.  A verbal report of emerging recommendations will be made to the committee including recommendations regarding the allocation of their intervention monies.

      Project delivery and procurement

2.5    As noted, due to limited organisational capacity, it has been agreed that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2e

The Committee considered a report which provided details of the Council-organised City Development Conference to be held on Wednesday, 22nd May, 2013.

            After a lengthy discussion, the Committee agreed to the format of the proposed conference and to the holding of the conference in the MAC.

The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 8th March, it had received a report on Maximising the Regeneration Impact of the Stadia Developments at Windsor Park and Casement Park.  At that meeting, the Members had been apprised of the progress and the timetables in relation to the developments.  In order to update the Members on the current progress, it was proposed to hold a special meeting on Friday, 26th April at 12.00 noon.

            The Committee agreed to the holding of the special meeting as outlined.

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1     Relevant Background Information

1.1    The Department of the Environment has issued a consultation document on severance arrangements for councillors (copy attached at Appendix 1).  Responses to the consultation are to be with the Department no later than 31st May, 2013.

2       Key Issues

2.1    The consultation document asks a number of questions in relation to options as to how the scheme should be delivered.  The main aspects of the scheme are summarised below.

2.2    Eligibility - The Prescribed Period

         The prescribed period means that only those serving councillors who are in office on the date the Regulations come into force and who resign their seat before 31st March, 2015 will be eligible for severance under the scheme.

2.3    Application Periods

         It is proposed that there will be two periods during which councillors can apply for severance.  The first period would start from the date the Regulations come into operation and end on 31st December, 2013.  Councillors who apply in the first period would resign their seats immediately and the vacant seat would be filled using the current co-option arrangements.

         The second period would commence on 1st January, 2014 and end on the closing date for nominations for the local government elections.  Councillors who apply in this period would have to resign before 31st March, 2015.

         The scheme is clear that it will not be possible for a councillor who stands for election in 2014 and fails to be elected to then apply for severance.  The decision to apply under the scheme must be made in one of the two prescribed periods.  In addition, applicants under the severance scheme will be required to sign a declaration that they will not seek re-election.

         Severance payments would be made on or after the date of the councillor’s resignation.

         The first question in the consultation document asks if the Council agrees with this two stage application process and, if not, what alternative would it suggest?  The second question asks if the Council would foresee any practical or administrative difficulties with the prescribed period ending on 31st March, 2015?

         It is recommended that the Council should respond supporting the two stage process and that it does not foresee any difficulties with the prescribed period ending on 31st March, 2015.

         The Minister is considering discussing with the Secretary of State the possibility of amending electoral legislation to allow a vacancy on an existing council to be filled by co-option after 1st January, 2014 and question three asks if the Council would be supportive of this proposal.

         All political parties appear to be satisfied with the current co-option system for dealing with casual vacancies on a council.  It is considered that the extension of these arrangements beyond 1st January in an election year would not disadvantage any particular party and would allow incoming co-opted councillors to gain valuable experience both in constituency work and in familiarising themselves with council procedures.  Accordingly, it is recommended that the Council should support this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3a

The Committee was advised that the undernoted requests for the use of the City Hall and the provision of hospitality had been received:

The Committee adopted the recommendations.

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0    Relevant Background Information 

1.1    The Council at its meeting on 2 April 2012 adopted five Area Working Groups consisting of­-  

·               North Belfast comprising the Castle and Oldpark District Electoral Areas (DEAs)

·               South Belfast comprising the Balmoral and Laganbank DEAs

·               East Belfast comprising the Pottinger and Victoria DEAs

·               West Belfast comprising the Lower Falls and Upper Falls DEAs; and

·               Shankill comprising the Court DEA.

1.2    The interim terms of reference for the AWGs were agreed as to:

·               act as community advocates to identify local priorities and support effective ‘place-shaping’;

·               make recommendations to SP&R Committee on investment decisions for the local area;

·               offer advice and guidance to SP&R Committee and officers in the development and implementation of local projects;

·               participate in and facilitate community engagement and communications activities with a wide range of groups on investment in local areas;

·               consider other area-based issues as referred by SP&R Committee;

·               monitor progress and produce an annual report on performance.

         In governance terms, the Groups were established to have an advisory role, informing the implementation of the Belfast Investment Programme.  It was agreed that the AWGs would have no delegated authority and no budget.

2.0    Review of first year

2.1    The Area Working Groups have met consistently since their establishment, largely on a monthly basis. Work to date of the AWGs has included:

·               Considering and making recommendations to the SP&R Committee of project proposals under the Local Investment Fund.  To date approx 60 projects have been agreed in principle for funding;

·               Using local intelligence to explore key issues at a local level;

·               Holding a series of workshops looking at examining the role of Members in place-shaping and community engagement, in the context of the LIF, as well as the wider context of community planning.

·               Receiving a range of presentations from a variety of stakeholders presenting issues/projects of specific interest to each AWGs

·               Considering integrated multi-organisational interventions at a local level.

         Since their establishment, the Area Working Groups have had a positive impact in the development of area based interventions and Members have begun to explore the potential presented by local area working.

2.2    In discussions at the Area Working Groups, members have highlighted a number of positive aspects of the approach to date including that the process has:

·               helped move forward a significant stream of funding to local areas through LIF which has developed Members and officers shared understanding of project implementation;

·               through LIF,  Feasibility Fund and recently BIF , helped focus purpose around delivery and city and local issues;

·               provided useful sharing of emerging thinking/priorities in SIF area plans;

·               acted as a channel for the emergence of local ideas and issues;

·               provided a more informal and creative environment for the generation of ideas about improving local areas;

·               acted as a forum within which local area issues and initiatives can be presented without the need for formal committee deputations;

·               provided Members and officers with practical learning opportunities in relation to resolving “live” community issues;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1       Relevant Background Information

1.1    The Committee, at its meeting on 14th December, 2012, considered a report on the ongoing review of governance and political management arrangements for the Council. At this meeting Members had been provided with a high-level overview of the range of options which are likely to emerge as part of the local government reform legislative programme (i.e. Reorganisation Bill) regarding future governance and political management arrangements. It was highlighted that the Reorganisation Bill is expected to present three options for the consideration of councils including (i) Traditional Committee System, (ii) Cabinet System, (iii) Streamlined Committee System. A copy of the relevant report is attached as Appendix 1 for Members information.

1.2    In considering the potential future political management arrangements, it is important to restate the good governance principles within which the Council currently operates.

1.3    At the meeting on 14 December 2012, it was agreed that Party briefings would be held, facilitated by Jonathan Huish, to enable Members to explore what options may exist regarding future governance and political management arrangements for the Council.

1.4    The purpose of the report is to provide an update on Members’ discussions to date and the key issues emerging; set out the current legislative timetable linked to local government reform; and to outline the proposed next steps.

2       Key Issues

2.1    Legislative Timetable

         The Environment Minister confirmed at a recent Regional Transition Committee meeting that he intended to introduce the Local Government Reorganisation Bill to the Assembly in April.  Members should note that the Bill is expected to include high level enabling legislation on future governance options but that a significant amount of the detail which will be required for the Council to take informed decisions will be issued thereafter as part of a detailed programme of subordinate legislation. 

2.2    Regardless of the system of governance selected for the new Council in 2015, the Reorganisation Bill is likely to introduce a series of new checks and balances including:

·         Proportionality – to be applied in the appointment of committees and key positions within council and to external bodies.

·         Weighted Majority Voting – It is expected that an 80% weighted majority voting will be introduced for decisions which are taken on a number of key areas including e.g. selection of governance structures and major capital projects. 

·         Call-in - it is likely that a system of call-in will be introduced whereby a 15% of the total number of members (in the new council this would be 9 members) will be the trigger point to request a call-in.

2.3    It will be necessary to await the publication of the Reorganisation Bill and subordinate legislation before we can be certain as to how the checks and balances might impact upon effective decision-making but it would be prudent for the Committee to bear in mind that the system will certainly impact upon how we operate in the future.

2.4    Establishment of Statutory Transition Committees

         The Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4c

The Director of Finance and Resources submitted for the Committee’s consideration the undernoted report:

“1.0    Relevant Background Information

1.1    The Committee will recall that the Council, at its meeting on 3rd April considered the undernoted Notice of Motion which had been proposed by Councillor Convery and Seconded by Alderman Humphrey:

         Northern Ireland Hospice

      ‘This Council recognises the significance of the work of the Northern Ireland Hospice and its contribution to healthcare in our City and beyond.

      The Northern Ireland Hospice has contributed significantly to the welfare of the seriously ill by providing palliative care within the Hospice and by providing a service in the community throughout Northern Ireland.  It also helps and assist families who at these times are under extreme emotional pressure.

      Accordingly, the Council agrees to allocate payments of £250,000 in each of the next two financial years to the Northern Ireland Hospice Redevelopment Fund using its special expenditure powers under Section 37 of the Local Government Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.’

1.2    In accordance with Standing Order 11(e), the Motion stood referred to the Committee.

2.0    Key Issues

2.1    Members will recall that the Committee on 22nd February considered a report regarding a request for funding from the Northern Ireland Hospice (copy attached).

2.2    The Committee agreed to contribute, from the under spend for 2012/13 in accordance with Section 37 of the Local Government Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, £200,000 towards the redevelopment of the Northern Ireland Hospice. The expenditure was financed from the in year under spend as the Council does not have a separate budget for Section 37 expenditure.

2.3    In considering the Notice of Motion Members must consider the following:

·         Question 1: Does the payment fall within the agreed criteria approved by the Council?

·         Question 2: If the payment was made, would the Council’s total payments be within the limit allowable for the Council under Section 37 of the Local Government Finance Act 2011?

·         Question 3: Is there available finance within the Council’s budgets to cover the expenditure?

2.4    Question 1: The Legal Services Section has confirmed that the payment to the NI Hospice for the purposes of the redevelopment of the Hospice would meet the criteria agreed by the Council.

2.5    Question 2: The total payments that can be made under Section 37 in 2013/14 and 2014/15 are approximately £305,000 each year. The only other Section 37 payments currently committed for 2013/14 and 2014/15 are £7,600 per annum for the Oil Stamps Scheme. This means that should it be agreed to make the £250,000 payments to the NI Hospice in the next two years the Council would still be within the allowable limit.

2.6    Members should note, however, that the maximum value of additional requests that could be considered in 2013/14 and 2014/15 within the Finance Act limit would be £47,400. Based on previous years, this amount would be adequate to meet expected demand.

2.7    Question 3: Before a payment can be made to the NI Hospice, Members must be satisfied that sufficient  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a

The Committee noted the minutes of the meeting of the Budget and Transformation Panel of 11th April.

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0    Relevant Background Information

1.1    The SP&R Committee is the Council’s investment decision maker. In order for the Council to ensure that it is able to monitor all capital spend, all capital related decisions must be taken to SP&R Committee.  Members will recall that they approved the Council’s Capital Programme at the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee Meeting on 22 March. 

1.2    As part of this, Members were reminded that all capital projects must go through a Stage Process where the decision on which projects progress are taken by SP&R Committee as outlined below:

·               Stage 1 - Emerging proposals: proposals which require completion of a Strategic Outline Case (SOC) before they could be considered further by SP&R Committee.

·               Stage 2 - Uncommitted projects: projects where an SOC has been agreed by Committee and work on the project is being progressed through the development of an Outline Business Case (OBC), but they have not yet been developed to a stage where permission could be sought from SP&R to proceed to tender. 

·               Stage 3 - Committed projects: projects which have completed a Full Business Case (FBC) and where approval has already been obtained by SP&R to proceed to tender. These projects will be at the tender award, contract or construction stage.

1.3    SP&R Committee approval at each of these Stages will ensure that projects are robustly managed, that assurance on successful delivery is provided and that any issues are identified and communicated at an early stage. This process will also afford Members an opportunity to stop/defer projects which are not feasible/viable and enable them to refocus funding on those projects which Members consider priority. Member are asked to note that officers have developed supporting documents around each of the Stages to ensure that projects are all completing the same information so that Members can take informed decisions.  Detailed processes are also being developed around each of these Stages.

2.0    Key Issues suspend

2.1    Members have approved the list of Stage 1 Emerging Projects, a copy of which has been circulated. SOCs have now been completed for three of the projects on this list and approval is sought to advance these to ‘Stage 2 – Uncommitted’.

2.2    An SOC examines the following issues in relation to a proposed project (i) Background to the project; (2) Feasibility; (3) Affordability; (4) Deliverability and Sustainability.  Members are asked to note that at SOC level the affordability of a project is only examined at a very high level and this is tested and challenged further during Stage 2 and Stage 3.

2.3    Members are asked to note that as part of the Stage 1 process, an internal Gate review is conducted to confirm the need and requirement of a project. This Gate Review identifies key areas of work that needs further examination, particularly around demonstrating affordability, achievability, deliverability and sustainability.

2.4    SOCs have been prepared for the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5c

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Order 55 and the authority delegated to him, the Director of Finance and Resources had authorised the appointment of a member of staff who was related to an existing officer of the Council.

The Committee noted the contents of a report in relation to an unsuccessful attempt to break into the City Hall on 5th April, 2013, recognised the prompt response by the security team to the incident and endorsed the proposal to use the text notification system to apprise Members of any similar incidents in the future.

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“Relevant Background Information

1.1    Members are aware that the Illuminate project, which has been parted funded by the EU, has replaced the existing City Hall façade lighting on the front, east and west facades as well as the main dome and turrets with a new low-energy LED lighting infrastructure.  The key aim of the project is to sustainably reduce energy consumption and significantly reduce CO₂ emissions.

1.2    One of the other benefits of the project is that it will also enable the City Hall to be illuminated in a variety of colours and colour combinations which are not currently possible. The lights which have been installed are the same technology which is used on the Empire State Building and other iconic buildings around the globe and the system which has been installed on the City Hall is one of the most advanced in the world. All Members were invited to attend the formal switch on event of the Illuminate project on Thursday 11 April which was very positively received.

2.0    Key Issues

2.1    Members were updated on the progress and proposed governance arrangements of the Illuminate project at the SP&R Committee meeting on 21st February.  As part of this it was highlighted to Members that the new lighting features could be used to promote inclusivity and cultural awareness by recognizing days of particular significance to groups within the wider community through the illumination of the City Hall in the relevant colour(s). It was proposed that 6 specific days of particular interest to local people and communities be included in the schedule namely:

St. Patrick’s Day (Green)    -   Polish Independence Day (red and white)

Orangefest (Orange)           -   Chinese New Year (red and yellow)

St. Valentine’s Day  (Red)  -   Gay Pride (rainbow)

         It was also proposed that 12 nominated charities selected by the Council’s civic dignitaries (Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor and High Sheriff) will be able to use the new lighting features for charity events etc.  These days had been equality screened and there were no equality implication arising. Members were asked to note that further days of cultural/social significance could be added to the schedule if agreed by the SP&R Committee.   Members were however asked to note that given the iconic status of the City Hall the over-use of the lighting facilities on too many days per year could adversely affect the image and reputation of the building.   

2.2    During the discussion at SP&R on 21st February, the proposed days as outlined above were agreed. The Committee had further discussion about a number of other days which could be illuminated. As part of this, it was proposed that 2 additional days be added to this list, namely

·               May Day (red) and

·               International Women’s Day (purple)

         However after further discussion the Committee decided that, as these days had not formed part of the equality screening carried out on the proposal, they should not to be included at that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

The Committee noted the contents of a report which provided an update in relation to a Corporate Accommodation Strategy and agreed to the re-establishment of the Accommodation Working Group in order to progress the matter.

The Committee was advised that a request had been received from Christian Aid and others to permit the staging of a “BIG IF BELFAST” concert in the grounds of the City Hall to coincide with the hosting of the G8 summit of world leaders in County Fermanagh in June.  The event would take place on Saturday, 15th June, 2013 between 3.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m.  The stated purpose of the organisers was that the event would “provide an entertaining and informative mass-mobilisation event to mark the culmination of the Enough Food IF campaign work in Northern Ireland and provide a platform for articulating the need for change to the G8 Leaders”.

            The Director of Property and Projects reported that the draft programme for the event included a high-profile keynote speaker and a number of local celebrities plus a music contribution by the Ulster Orchestra and others.  The event was scheduled to culminate in a finale piece involving “the coming together of signed banners with messages to the G8 Leaders that have travelled from each of the 26 council areas of Northern Ireland (and potentially London, Wales, Scotland and Dublin) which were combined together an fastened to a Giant ‘IF’ installation in the grounds of the City Hall”.  The event would be a free to access pre-ticketed concert and the organisers would expect 6,000 people to attend the afternoon of activities.  It was envisaged that a range of Council departments would have input to ensure that the event was properly managed and delivered in a safe manner.  The organisers would be expected to cover all costs connected to the staging of the event and there would be a need for a comprehensive legal contract with the organisers covering reinstatement arrangements, operational requirements and insurance issues.  The Committee was requested to note that there were two other long-standing exhibition bookings which had already been approved for the City Hall grounds on the same date and time. The Committee also noted that a number of additional security measures would be introduced after advice from the Police Service of Northern Ireland over the period of the G8 event.

            The Committee agreed to accede to the request.

(Mrs. H. Francey, Good Relations Manager, attended in connection with these items.)

The Committee approved and adopted the minutes of the meeting of the Good Relations Partnership of 8th April.

The Members were reminded that, following the death on 8th April of Baroness Thatcher, the Chief Executive had received an enquiry as to whether the Union Flag would be flown at the City Hall on the day of the funeral.  The Chief Executive had contacted the Party Leaders on the Council on 9th April to explain that that would fall within the existing Council policy.  To ensure that there was no confusion on future occasions, the Chief Executive undertook to submit to the Committee a report outlining the policy.

            The Members were informed that the Equality Impact Assessment, which had been produced in 2004, on the flying of the Union Flag had noted that, apart from the specified days listed, the Union Flag could be flown at half mast on occasions, including for funerals of members of the Royal Family and of office bearers such as former Prime Ministers, when special instructions were issued to that effect by the Lord Chamberlain’s Department (a function which now lay with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport).  That practice had previously been noted in a report to the former Policy and Resources Committee at its meeting on 18th April, 2003.

            The issue of occasions when special instructions were issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to fly the Union Flag at half mast had not been specifically mentioned in the 2012 Flags Equality Impact Assessment, which focused more on the issue of the flying of the flag as a regular practice.  The Council decision in December, 2012 in that regard was in the context of amending the then current policy and the amendment focused on the issue of the flying of the Union Flag on designated days rather than 365 days a year.  Consequently, it followed that the previously existing protocol in relation to the flying of the Union Flag at half mast on specific occasions remained in force.

            Furthermore, and in any event, the Council’s decision at its meeting of 3rd December was to fly the Union Flag on “designated days”, which was subsequently clarified through the Joint Group of the Party Leaders’ Forum and the Historic Centenaries Working Group to mean the days on the list issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in Westminster.  That Department had issued on 8th April, 2013 an instruction to include the flying of the Union Flag on the day of the funeral and it was accordingly appropriate for the Council to apply that instruction.

            The Committee noted the information which had been provided and that the foregoing protocol in relation to the flying of the Union Flag on special occasions would continue to be applied when special notifications were issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

In considering the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Group of Party Leaders’ Forum and Historic Centenaries Working Group of 16th April, the Members’ attention was drawn to the minute in relation to the flying of the Union Flag at the City Hall Cenotaph.

            The Committee was advised that the Group had considered a report and the results of the pre-consultation exercise on the proposed policy of the flying of the Union Flat at the Cenotaph.  In conclusion, that report had made the following recommendations:

·         to determine whether the Group has sufficient information on the potential equality and good relations impacts of the proposed policy on which to base a rational decision

·         to determine whether a full Equality Impact Assessment is required

·         to proceed to make a decision on the proposed policy, taking into account the evidence presented in this screening report

·         to determine the timescale for submitting the decision of the Joint Group to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee

            Following discussion, the Joint Group had agreed the following:

(i)      that there was sufficient information on the potential equality and good relations impacts of the policy on which to make a rational decision;

(ii)     that the question of whether a full Equality Impact Assessment was required and whether to make a decision on the policy be referred to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee;

(iii)    the minutes of the meeting be submitted to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee for consideration at its meeting scheduled for 19th April: and

(iv) a report will be submitted to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee on 19th April in relation to the date of the monthly Council meeting in May.

            With regard to point (iv) in relation to the date of the monthly Council meeting in May, the Democratic Services Manager tabled a report in that regard.

            After discussion, the Committee agreed that the Council meeting in May should not be moved from its scheduled date of Wednesday, 1st May.

            After further discussion, it was

            Moved by Councillor McCarthy,

            Seconded by Councillor Maskey,

      That the Council’s policy on the flying of the Union Flag in the Garden of Remembrance at the City Hall remain unchanged.

            On a vote by show of hands twelve Members voted for the proposal and six against and it was accordingly declared carried.

            Subject, to the foregoing decision, the minutes of the meeting were approved and adopted.

The Committee considered a report in relation to the dedication ceremony to mark the installation of the revised UDR window in the City Hall and memorial bench to be located in the Garden of Remembrance at the City Hall and approved the arrangements as outlined.

            (Mrs. G. McEvoy, Senior Environmental Health Officer, attended in connection with this item.)

            The Committee was advised that an EU summit on Active and Healthy Ageing was being held in Dublin on 13th and 14th June, 2013 in association with the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union.  The invitation event would be attended by the EU Commissionaire, Marie Geoghegan-Quinn, Senior EU and national policy makers, senior executives, mayors and leaders of existing and aspiring age-friendly cities and an invitation to attend had been issued to Belfast.

            The summit aimed to provide a unique opportunity to set the agenda for an Age?Friendly Europe at a time when the ageing population was profoundly challenging fiscal sustainability.  The event would provide an opportunity for the Council to help shape that agenda.  It was hoped that he summit would help drive Europe’s prosperity by charting a path for economic growth, improved health delivery, effective financial planning and intergenerational aspiration for life-long learning and activity.  It was anticipated that attending the event would also provide an opportunity for the Council to learn from the experiences of other cities and ensure it was linked into emerging developments in the age-friendly agenda across Europe.  The Health and Environmental Services Committee, at its meeting on 10th April, had considered a similar report and had authorised the Chairman of that Committee (or their nominee) to attend the summit.

            The programme for the summit was developing and the organisers had indicated that they would also be extending an invitation to the Lord Mayor of Belfast, together with invited mayors from across Europe, to attend the event and to sign a declaration, which set out the vision, principles and commitments for municipal and national leaders for age-friendly cities in a European context.

            The All-Party Reference Group on Older People, which was chaired by Councillor Kelly, oversaw the work of the Council in this area and accordingly it was recommended that she (or her nominee) be authorised to attend the summit.  It was recommended also, that an appropriate Elected Member be granted authority to sign the declaration on behalf of the Council.

            The Committee adopted the recommendations.

A Member requested that a report in relation to the traffic congestion in the City be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee.

            The Committee agreed that, in the first instance, and as he had done so previously the Lord Mayor be requested to host a meeting of the relevant stakeholders and key personnel to discuss the matter.

Chairman