Minutes:
The Committee was reminded that the Council’s Bonfire Governance Arrangements stated that the Press and public will be excluded from meetings in relation to bonfire-related issues having regard to the sensitive nature of the business to be transacted and for the protection of officers who might be required to provide information to assist in decision-making. In addition the information provided was to be treated as sensitive and confidential.
Accordingly, the Committee agreed that the Press and public be excluded from the meeting.
The Committee was advised also that, in accordance with Standing Order 37a - Duties of Committees: Strategic Policy and Resources Committee, it had full delegated authority to take decisions in relation to bonfire related issues.
The Chief Executive submitted a report which provided details on a number of bonfire sites and current issues on which the Committee may consider it appropriate make a decision. The Strategic Director of City and Neighbourhood Services then provided a verbal update on each of the sites.
Thistle Court/Madrid Street
The Committee agreed:
· To approve the provision of a beacon, as an alternative to a traditional bonfire, at a location identified at Thistle Court/Madrid Street on 11th July and that Council officers manage the issue of no constituted group being responsible for any liability; and
· That officers implement mitigation measures to minimise potential damage.
Avoniel Site
Proposal
Moved by Councillor Beattie,
Seconded by Councillor Walsh,
That the Committee agrees to the removal of all of the bonfire materials at the Avoniel site and to the removal also of all the flags on the site.
Amendment
Moved by Councillor Dorrian,
Seconded by Alderman Haire,
That the Committee agrees to allow for more discussions to take place in relation to the removal of the tyres only at the Avoniel site.
On a vote by show of hands, five Members voted for the amendment and twelve against and it was declared lost.
The original proposal standing in the name of Councillor Beattie and Seconded by Councillor Walsh was put to the meeting, when twelve Members voted for and five against and it was declared carried.
Ashdale Street
Proposal
Moved by Councillor Beattie,
Seconded by Councillor Walsh,
That the Committee agrees to the removal of all of the bonfire materials at the Ashdale Street site.
Amendment
Moved by Councillor Dorrian,
Seconded by Alderman Haire,
That the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the matter for a period of 24 hours to allow for more discussions to take place in relation to retaining the bonfire at its current height and that a further special meeting be held to consider the outcome of those discussions.
On a vote by show of hands, five Members voted for the amendment and twelve against and it was declared lost.
The original proposal standing in the name of Councillor Beattie and Seconded by Councillor Walsh was put to the meeting, when twelve Members voted for and five against and it was declared carried.
Inverary Site
The Committee agreed that at the present time no action be undertaken with regard to the bonfire at the Inverary site, but that discussions commence on the suitability of the use of the site for a bonfire in future years.
Cluan Place and Bonfires on Others’ Land
The Committee agreed to grant approval to the Department for Infrastructure (DfI), as the landowner, to use the Council’s contractor, if a request was made, for the removal of bonfire materials at Cluan Place or at other sites. The Committee noted that DfI was the decision maker with regards to sites in its ownership and any request would be met within the parameters of the availability of the contractor and costs being met by DfI.
The Committee agreed also to accede to any further requests from landowners for the use of the Council’s contractor for the removal of bonfire materials from their land under the same terms and conditions.
Call-in
The Committee agreed further, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (a) (2) (c), that the decisions would not be subject to call-in, on the basis that an unreasonable delay could be prejudicial to the Council’s or the public’s interest.
Supporting documents: