Council Claim Inaccuracies in 'Council Watch' Statement

0

Shares

1 Comment

Following a call for leadership change at Newry, Mourne and Down District Council by a group calling itself Council Watch, the Council have released their own statement noting inaccuracies in the press release published earlier today. See Petition Demands Leadership Change at Newry, Mourne and Down District Council

Chris Kent 30 October and Blondie Tribute 28 December @ Canal Court Hotel

We produce their statement in full below:

"The Council notes inaccuracies in the press release referenced.

In relation to the Mourne Mountains Gateway project, this was managed in line with Council and Belfast Region City Deal (BRCD) governance processes. All matters relating to the project — including land ownership, public announcements, public consultation and finance — were reported and agreed through the Council’s governance structure, including programme boards, the Strategy Policy and Resources Committee and full Council.

Both the Strategic Outline Business Case and the Outline Business Case were approved in line with Council and BRCD governance requirements and were considered by the Department of Finance and the Department for Economy.

An alternative concept proposal was presented by the Council and approved by the BRCD Executive Board at a meeting last week. Subject to approval through the Council’s governance processes, work will begin to further develop the proposal and prepare an Outline Business Case. Reallocation of the funding will be subject to business case approval by the BRCD Executive Board in the first instance, and ultimately Executive approval.

In relation to the Newry and Downpatrick Flood Response (November 2023), the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) was the lead agency for flood response in 2023. The Council worked alongside DfI and other Multi Agency partners in response to flooding across the district and distributed £118,000 of SEFA funding to residential properties on behalf of DfC and approximately £5million in grant funding, on behalf of the Department for Economy to impacted businesses across the district.

In relation to the Civic and Regional Hub project, the Council applies local government legislation in relation to confidential business. The decision with regards to planning is subject to an application for leave for Judicial Review which is being considered by the Courts.

The operations at Warrenpoint Port are licensed by the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural affairs. All complaints received by the Council’s Environmental Health Department in relation to alleged nuisance at Warrenpoint Port have been investigated and complainants informed of the outcome of the investigations.

The Council held a Special Council meeting on 25 March 2024 in relation to the environmental concerns at Warrenpoint Port and an Emergency Notice of Motion was tabled and approved at a meeting of Full Council in July 2025. The Notice of Motion read as follows:

“This Council condemns in the strongest possible terms the ongoing and escalating negative impact that the storage and handling of household waste by ReGen at Warrenpoint Port is having on the people of Warrenpoint and the surrounding area; Highlights with deep concern the serious and persistent deterioration in environmental and public health conditions, including overwhelming odours, an increased presence of flies and vermin; Notes that these conditions are not only a major nuisance but represent a growing public health risk to residents, particularly those living in close proximity to the port, including families with young children and vulnerable individuals;

Further condemns the reappearance of these unacceptable environmental nuisances during the recent Wake the Giant Festival, an event central to the district’s cultural and tourism offering, and warns of the likely disruption to other summer festivals and community activities should this issue remain unresolved; Asserts that the ongoing presence of RDF waste in a densely populated, residential and recreational area is wholly inappropriate and has resulted in residents being forced to endure foul smells, an inability to open windows, enjoy outdoor spaces, or run local businesses without disruption; Warns that Warrenpoint’s economic prosperity, social wellbeing, and long-term reputation are under serious threat if immediate action is not taken to end this situation, which has persisted for over two years; Agrees to write urgently to the Chair of the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority Board, the Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins MLA; the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir MLA, and the Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) to make clear this council’s position: that the handling and storage of RDF waste in Warrenpoint in such close proximity to homes, community and public spaces is unacceptable and unsuitable; And calls on them to initiate formal discussions with ReGen. It was also agreed to invite the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority to Council to provide an update on the ongoing situation.”

Please note, any decisions taken by the Council are documented, and any concerns relating to decisions of the Council can be considered by the Audit Committee and/or external bodies with oversight of Council decisions.”

: Columba O'Hare; Category: News; Published: 25 February 2026

Comment

Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.

This commment is unpublished.
Eye Despair · 6 months ago
I note the statement that Newry, Mourne and Down District Council presented an alternative tourism concept proposal to the Belfast Region City Deal Executive Board, which approved it at a meeting last week. Subject to the Council completing its own internal governance processes, work will proceed to develop the proposal and prepare an Outline Business Case. Reallocation of funding will then be subject to business case approval by the BRCD Executive Board and, ultimately, the NI Executive.
This sequence is fundamentally illogical and does not withstand basic governance scrutiny.
A business case exists to inform and produce a decision — not to ratify one already made. Approving a concept proposal before the business case has been prepared, let alone assessed, inverts the entire purpose of the process. The approval precedes the evidence, when the evidence should precede the approval.
This problem is compounded by the complete absence of alternatives. HM Treasury's Green Book — the governing framework for all public sector business cases — explicitly requires a long list of options to be developed, assessed and reduced to a short list before any preferred option is selected. There is no indication that this has occurred. The BRCD Executive Board has effectively endorsed a single concept in a vacuum, with no comparative analysis, no assessment of relative economic impact, and no scrutiny of opportunity cost.
The correct process would have been for the Council to present a range of proposals spanning the relevant investment pillars, supported by outline assessments of economic impact, with a decision then taken on which proposals merit full development into business cases.
The funding reallocation dimension makes this more serious still — and must be understood in its full context. The funding at issue was previously committed not to one failed project, but to two. Two separate gondola proposals were approved, progressed and ultimately failed to deliver. That is not misfortune; it is a pattern of governance failure. On both occasions, public funds were committed to projects that did not proceed, without adequate safeguards to ensure deliverability at the point of approval.
The response to that pattern is now to approve a third project — again without comparative analysis, again without a prior business case, and again on the basis that the evidence will follow rather than lead. This is not a governance process. It is the repeated substitution of one unvalidated proposal for another, dressed in the language of process while dispensing with its substance.
Public funds reallocated from failed projects carry the same accountability obligations as new funding — arguably more so, given the prior failures that necessitated the reallocation. The BRCD Executive Board and the Council's own governance structures have now failed that test not once, but twice. A third approval made on the same basis would compound that failure further.
The points made by Council Watch are valid and have merit, it will be interesting to see if the Audi office in turn agree with these observations.

I am just thankful that when a Council or any government agency steps forward to defend itself, the argument has already been lost so I do thank the Council for it outburst.
- {"set":null,"list":[]}
- Reply
- Share