Write a comment
The council is refusing to clarify or explain why its CEO gave incorrect and misleading information on the Newry City Centre Regeneration projects to members of the local business community at a presentation organised by Newry Chamber of Commerce and Trade.
The event, held in the Canal Court Hotel on Wednesday July 31, was to provide Newry, Mourne and Down District Council CEO Marie Ward, and council Director Conor Mallon the opportunity to discuss council regeneration plans for Newry and take questions from the audience.
This was a private event however, an audio from the gathering was leaked to some local media outlets including Newry.ie. The Newry Reporter also published much of the transcript last week.
After listening to the audio there was information and claims made by Mrs Ward to an audience of some 50-60 local business people, that was misleading and ultimately wrong.
Every public servant is expected to deliver accurate information - even if it is behind closed doors with no media present - and deal in real, not alternative facts or misinformation.
Will Mrs Ward come out and correct the information - it seems no, she won’t.
Nothing “supposedly” about pivotal Deloitte report
At the presentation Mrs Ward, in an effort to counter the narrative there was no economic benefit to building new council offices (Civic Hub) behind Newry Cathedral, stated: “I know there have been queries at a point in time around, you know there was supposedly a report where it said there was no economic return. I suppose the report doesn’t say that.
“The report just didn’t calculate the economic return at that point,” Mrs Ward claimed.
However, there is nothing “supposedly” about the report Mrs Ward referenced.
Titled ‘Newry City Regeneration, Strategic Outline Business Case’ and produced by consultants Deloitte, this is a document that has provided possibly the most pivotal moment in the Newry Regeneration programme - councillors agreeing the projects.
It was presented to council in May 2018 with councillors in June 2018 asked to decide on options on to take the projects forward.
The council options paper and recommendations, accompanying the Outline Business Case, and also presented to councillors, was authored by Mrs Ward.
So, there are receipts, as they say.
Contrary to what the Council CEO told the businesspeople, the Deloitte document clearly states: “No direct economic impact has been calculated for the Civic Hub of the regeneration programme as this is largely the relocation of the Council’s existing staff at the Monaghan Row offices…”
It adds: “Staff will be closer to the city centre so there may be additional money spent in the city centre shops, particularly at lunchtimes, but this is very difficult to estimate and is unlikely to be additional to the overall local economy.”
You can’t get clearer than that - the expert consultants said there would be no economic benefit to local businesses.
Three years later, in December 2021, following a Freedom of Information submission, the council admitted it had no documentation to show that building the new council offices behind the Cathedral would even increase footfall never mind provide an economic boost to the city centre.
And that was at a time when it was envisaged around 300 people would be working in the offices. That figure now, in 2024, with agile working in place, will be closer to 150 maximum.
Since 2021 a number of similar requests have been submitted to the council, including requests for a copy of the economic impact assessment on Hill Street area businesses the council offices behind the Cathedral will have.
The council has failed to provide this information.
At the Chamber event, Mrs Ward claimed there had been “very detailed outline business cases done since” but then referred to “targets” in “footfall” and “the number of visitors” to Newry by “10%” compared to 2024 and a “15%” increase in evening expenditure after the regeneration is complete.
Mrs Ward gave no details on how the new council offices would boost the local economy nothing on how the new council offices would provide an economic return.
Misleading the Chamber President
After a video presentation, Newry Chamber President Edwina Flynn, noting that the presentation didn’t include car parking sought clarity on the contentious issue of North Street car park, which is currently free to use but there is a fear that the council will convert it into a pay and display facility.
“Specifically in relation to North Street car park, we have, and people will be aware, and it has been well documented in the media that we have a planning application in to formalise the car park there,” said Mrs Ward.
“We are at the very, very early stages of that. I think there was a bit of misinformation on that because in the planning application there was one, I think it was one pay and display unit in the planning application and everyone jumped on top of it and thought we were just going to charge…”
Again, there are receipts which show Mrs Ward misinformed the audience - drawing number DSD001-G-1-13A in planning application LA07/2024/0602/F for North Street clearly shows there are 10 - not 1 - but 10 pay and display units marked for the proposed North Street car park.
Further, at the April 2024 Newry Regeneration Programme Board meeting, councillors asked council management about parking charges in North Street.
In response they were told by officers/directors (to quote the minutes) “…it was assumed that in line with other proposals for off street car park charges, North Street would be charged.”
Mrs Ward’s remark, in essence blaming others, was misleading and factually incorrect.
There was no misinformation, no one ‘jumped’ on the ‘one’ pay and display unit.
The information came out of council.
Public servants, irrespective of their position, are expected to provide accurate and factually correct information to the public to, according to the Local Government Employees Code of Conduct, “establish and maintain the trust and confidence of the public to ensure the integrity of their council in conduction business” and in carrying out their duties, “must provide the highest possible standard of service to the public.”
With that in mind, media questions were lodged with the council seeking clarification over the accuracy of remarks and claims made by Mrs Ward and would the correct information be provided to those in attendance?
As is the council’s way when it comes to accountability and openness, it refused to comment choosing instead to say as it was not a public meeting “it would be inappropriate to provide any comment.”
