Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon councillors approve new Business Paint Scheme for shop fronts spruce-up

ABC councillors unanimously approved the scheme, which will support a maximum of 46 businesses fronting onto the streetscape – 26 urban and 20 rural - across the following towns and villages in the borough: Armagh, Banbridge, Craigavon, Dromore, Lurgan, Portadown, Aghagallon, Bleary, Dollingstown, Donaghcloney, Gilford, Keady, Laurelvale/Mullavilly, Magheralin, Markethill, Rathfriland, Richhill, Tandragee, Waringstown, Drumnacanvy, Hamiltonsbawn, Kinallen, Poyntzpass, Blackwatertown, Loughgall, Derrymacash, Loughbrickland.

The scheme was proposed by Alderman Ian Burns at the latest Economic Development & Regeneration committee meeting of the local authority.

The UUP representative said: “We have seen lots of work on environmental improvement schemes throughout the borough this past number of years, and I think all the towns are looking well.

“Businesses are at times getting it tight, so I think the fact that we can help them to invest in their own properties is a great deal.”

Councillor Julie Flaherty (UUP) seconded the proposal, welcoming the inclusion of smaller villages.

Pointing to Loughgall, she said: “Loughgall always seems to just miss out on some of these schemes and different things that happen in council — always just the wrong side of Armagh, the wrong side of the town.

“It maybe seems like a smallish thing to some, but it can make such a huge difference. I think that is a great [thing] for some of these businesses and they will be really delighted. [The council] will be inundated [with funding applications], I can guarantee.”

Councillor Peter Lavery (Alliance) was anxious to see the paint scheme completed during the summer months, when the weather lends itself to it.

He commented: “I can see this being a very popular scheme indeed, so we might have to consider what we are going to do if it is oversubscribed.

“The question I just have is on the timeline for this — you might want to see a lot of businesses doing the work over the summer months. What is the rough sort of timeline essentially at the moment?”

Infrastructure & Economic Development manager, Elaine Cullen replied: “We are keen to get this scheme launched at the end of May, early June. We are very mindful that the summer months are when the painting needs to take place.”

Also speaking in support of the scheme, Councillor Kyle Savage (UUP) said: “It is great to see the rural areas being mentioned in this. I think priority should be given to those areas that have never got any funding before.”

Alderman Paul Greenfield (DUP) called for the application window to remain open as long as possible given the 2026/27 timeframe, noting that weather dependency has caused problems with previous schemes: “I do think we will have a massive uptake; quite a few people have been asking about this.

“It is great to see smaller areas like Loughbrickland and Poyntzpass being included. Just one thing — it does say 2026/27. I think the longer we can open it up, the better, because I know in the past it has been very tight for some people to get it done.”

Alderman Paul Berry (Independent), however, expressed concerns over the limited number of rural grants available.

Pointing to the fact that Markethill, Gilford and Rathfriland have benefited from environmental schemes in the past, he commented: “In the past, those [three] towns that were having those environmental schemes automatically had a shop front scheme in relation to paint and so on, and we are going to club them in with the others, which I think would be unfair.

“If we are doing those street schemes, I think it would be good to see that when we are spending that money, those smaller rural town centres are focused on.

“And secondly, it mentions here supporting up to 46 businesses - 26 being urban and 20 being rural.

“Well, we have about six main [larger] towns and we have 21 towns and villages. So that would tell me that only one in each of the towns or villages would be eligible, which I think would be grossly unfair.

“I would just be deeply concerned that there will be a big uptake in this, and I would fear that there could be a bit of bad press as a result of this, because so many businesses will take the time to apply for this and then not be successful.

“And while I am happy to let this go through tonight, I still think there needs to be maybe a wee bit more working on it in relation to the budget.

“I do not want it to be so restrictive that it ends up with one in every town getting their shop front painted, and the rest continuing to pay high rates.”

In response, the presenting officer acknowledged: “The budget is very, very tight, and we are going to have to look at other funding opportunities, both within council and externally.”

Councillor Thomas O’Hanlon (SDLP) also noted that Markethill, Gilford and Rathfriland have received funding in the past: “Ald Berry is right, and I would ask officers to go back and have a look to see if there is a way that those three particular areas can be funded separately, which will ease pressure on this overall scheme.

“Secondly, can I propose that we write to both the Department for Communities and DAERA to see if they can put any money into this pot. I genuinely think this will be substantially oversubscribed, so I propose that we write to those two funders now.

“As part of that proposal, I would also propose that separate funding is made available for the three towns mentioned – Markethill, Rathfriland, and Gilford - because that is in line with what we have done historically.”

Director of Development, Community & Wellbeing, Paul Tamati explained that through the scheme, a case will hopefully be made for greater funding allocation in the future: “We are utilising our own council budget to fund these schemes initially, and I take the proposal around writing to other funders.

“Part of this proposal is that we can prove to the likes of DfC that we can run a type of scheme that will hopefully be oversubscribed, and that provides a better business case for us for applying for that funding going forward.”

Following a fairly lengthy debate, the original recommendation to approve the new borough-wide Business Paint Scheme, utilising a budget of £70,000 from the Economic Development budget for 2026/27, was approved.

It had been proposed by Ald Burns and seconded by Cllr Flaherty.

An additional proposal, directing the council to contact the Department for Communities and DAERA to ask for additional funding, and to treat Markethill, Gilford and Rathfriland separately when it comes to funding allocations, was also approved.

It had been proposed by Cllr O’Hanlon and seconded by Councillor Ian Wilson (DUP).