Controversial DUP motion on name for leisure centre defeated

It has been claimed the proposal, to name the leisure centre at Craigavon Lakes the ‘Centenary Leisure Centre’ and invite the Queen to open the building, was not supported by the chamber.

However, it is understood another proposal, to create a naming policy for council buildings and invite the Queen to open the new leisure centre was supported by the chamber during these discussions.

Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, DUP group leader, Councillor Mark Baxter confirmed he brought forward the proposal after his motion was  ruled improper during the section of the meeting open to the public.

“We were discussing the minutes of the South Lake Leisure Centre (SLLC) Board and I raised the proposal and it was seconded, so everyone had a vote on it,” said Cllr Baxter.

“The proposal has fallen at this stage and that is fair enough. At least we had the debate, we were never afraid of an open debate on this proposal.

“It went to a recorded vote and everyone voted against it, except my party and Cllr Paul Berry. Alderman Kenneth Twyble put forward another proposal to create a naming policy and invite the Queen to open the centre.

“That proposal was supported but it is a bit of fudge. It looks like it will now be called the South Lake Leisure Centre and we are relatively content with that.

“At least there was a democratic vote on the issue, it is not the name we would have chosen but at least there was a vote.”

Reflecting on the evening’s proceedings, Cllr Baxter made it clear that he was of the belief there is no reason the motion should not have been heard in public.

“It was shambolic,” said Cllr Baxter. “This is not a matter for confidential business but at least a democratic vote has taken place on the matter, even if it had to be held behind closed doors.”

Sinn Fein group leader, Councillor Liam Mackle said he was disappointed matters discussed in confidential business have been made public but was content that the correct decisions were made on the night.

“What happened in confidential business is obviously confidential but the proposal was brought up during a discussion on the minutes of the SLLC Board. To be honest it should have been done that way from the start,” said Cllr Mackle.

“This board has been meeting for five years and the project is very close to completion. It is the proper channel for discussions of this nature rather than dragging the council into an unnecessary rancorous debate about the pros and cons of partition.

“The proposal was raised during the discussion of the minutes of the Board’s meeting and that is the correct channel for for this decision and is, I think, the decision the Lord Mayor arrived at, earlier in the meeting, as well.”

Describing the evening as a “nightmare of a night” Councillor Paul Berry said that while the debate was held in confidential business, everyone involved, including council officers, should shoulder some blame for not tackling this issue earlier.

“Really all the naming policy has done is kick it further down the road,” said Cllr Berry.

“To be honest it was an error on everyone’s part, the name of this leisure centre should have been decided months, if not years ago and council officers should have come to the chamber to get it decided sooner, rather than leave it to this late stage.

“So in all, the name has not been decided upon yet but I can’t see how they will manage to formulate that policy before the centre is open.

“Perhaps they are hoping that by that stage the name will have stuck and it will be too difficult to change.”

While making it clear he had to respect the rules of confidentiality, SDLP Cllr Joe Nelson said he was content with the outcome of Monday night’s meeting.

“I am content that the name currently associated with this leisure centre will be the South Lake Leisure Centre until such time as an agreed council policy on building names is brought forward,” said Cllr Nelson.

Alliance Party group leader, Councillor Eoin Tennyson said he was disappointed with the way events had unfolded but was pleased a policy on the naming of council property is to be brought forward.

“It is disgraceful that years of work on the new centre have ended in acrimony over a name – particularly at a time when councillors should be focused on providing leadership, supporting the vulnerable and delivering services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Cllr Tennyson.

“Council facilities should be named in a manner which maintains neutrality and reflects locality, so as to be welcoming for everyone right across our community.

“That’s why during the public discussion on this matter, I proposed council developed a naming policy to ensure this is the case and to avoid similar controversies going forward. I’m pleased that at a later stage in the meeting this was agreed.”

The Ulster Unionist Party said it would not discuss confidential matters but expressed its disappointment at how events have transpired.

“Yet again, we are extremely disappointed at the way Council business is being conducted by fellow members of council over such important issues,” read a statement from the party.

“We all as members need to make a decision on how we want this Council to operate.  Our constituents are all crying out for assistance in these difficult times, our communities and businesses need us to be making decisions for them at this time of crisis.

“Our time would be better spent on urgent matters. Our constituents deserve better.”

Adam Morton , Local Democracy Reporting Service