Agenda item

(Ms. N. Largey, Solicitor, attended in connection with this item.)

            The Head of Building Control informed the Members that the power for the Council to consider applications to erect a second street nameplate in a language other than English was contained within Article 11 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.  He explained that, in accordance with the Council’s policy for the erection of dual-language street signs, a survey of all persons appearing on the Electoral Register for that street, together with tenants or owners of commercial properties, was required to be undertaken.  At least 66.6% of those surveyed would be required to be in favour of the proposal before the application could be placed before the Committee for approval. 

            He reminded the Committee that, at its meeting on 6th August, 2014, it had been advised that, following an unsuccessful application by a resident of Ballymurphy Drive to have an Irish language sign erected in that street, the applicant had applied for a Judicial Review against both the decision and the Council’s policy in relation to Dual?Language street signs.  He explained that the figure of 66.6% of those surveyed in the street had not been attained and therefore the application had not been presented to the Committee.

            He reported that the Judicial Review had been heard on 5th September and 10th November 2014 before Mr Justice Horner and had been based on the following five grounds: 

(“Ground 1”)

The refusal of the Council to consider the proposal to erect an Irish language Street name plate at Ballymurphy Drive was ultra vires, because the respondent fettered its discretion in applying the policy in such a way as to prevent due consideration being given to the particular circumstances of this application. 

 (“Ground 2”)

The Council’s dual language street sign policy is unlawful because it requires two-thirds or more of the occupiers appearing on the Electoral Register to indicate that they are in favour of the proposal to erect a second language street sign and /or because it deems those who do not reply to the proposal as not being in favour of it and/ or set the level of expressions of approval at the same threshold as that formally required to change the street name.

(“Ground 3”)

The terms of the policy are inconsistent with the terms of Article 11 of the 1995 Order, insofar as Article 11 requires the respondent to have regard to the views expressed by the occupier, whereas the policy allows those who do not respond to be considered to have expressed opposition to it. 

(“Ground 4”)

The policy is inconsistent with the council’s commitment to act in accordance with it’s obligations under the European Charter for regional or minority languages, and in particular the Charter obligation under 10(2)(g) to the use of adoption of traditional and correct forms of place-names in regional or minority languages. 

(“Ground 5”)

The policy was ultra vires as it was an attempt to re-enact the substantive terms of (the repealed) Section 21 of the Public Health Amendment Act 1907, where no such legislative power exists.

            He informed the Committee that Mr Justice Horner had, on 4th December, 2014, delivered his decision and had found that the Council’s decision making process had been lawful and that the applicant’s challenge had failed on each of the aforementioned five grounds. In particular he had determined that, as a general proposition, international treaties or agreements which had not been incorporated into national laws, were not enforceable.  He had determined also that a public authority could not be obliged to treat itself as bound to act in compliance with an international obligation and that, even where it does so, the Courts would adopt a very light-touch review which would not extend to ruling on the meaning or effect of the international treaty.

            The Head of Building Control reported that an order for costs had been made in favour of the Council, however, as the applicant was in receipt of legal aid, the order could not be enforced without further leave of the court. 

            The Committee noted the information which had been provided and noted that a copy of Mr Justice Horner’s decision could be viewed on the Mod.gov site.