DUP and Sinn Fein united over controversial proposal for Drumcree Road

During August’s monthly meeting of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council members were made aware of proposals from the Department of Infrastructure (DfI) to abandon a section of the Drumcree Road.

The section of road in question is used by the Orange Order during parades to and from Drumcree Parish Church.

When the issue was raised in Council, DUP Alderman Sydney Anderson, himself an Orangeman, said he had “great concern about this proposal”.

“This road is well used by a number of people including people walking their dogs, joggers etc. If this part of the road was to be abandoned, the road users would have to go through a new private development,” said Alderman Anderson.

“I have received representations from individuals and Portadown Orange Lodge, of which I am a member, and they have asked me to highlight the fact they parade this road.

“To abandon this road would reroute the parade right through the development.”

Alderman Anderson continued: “This could create great difficulties. I would suggest this part of the road be retained for pedestrian access and propose that we object to the abandonment of this portion of roadway.

“Pedestrian access is required to meet the needs of the whole community, can a copy of this correspondence be forwarded to the PSNI as they might have an opinion on this matter as well.”

His party colleague, Councillor Darryn Causby said he supported the proposal and called for the comments to be adopted as Council’s corporate position on the matter.

However, SDLP group leader, Councillor Thomas O’Hanlon expressed his objection to this proposal.

“We are objecting to an infrastructure project because it is a parading route,” queried Councillor O’Hanlon. “That is a matter for individual parties.”

At this point, Council’s Lord Mayor, Councillor Kevin Savage said: “The correspondence is seeking comment, it is fair he [Alderman Anderson] is making the comment.”

In response, Councillor O’Hanlon said he would like a second comment to be sent saying some members on Council support the proposal to abandon this section of the road.

The Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Kyle Savage said he had been approached about this issue by the farming community.

“They use this junction regularly and their concern is they will have to go through this development with heavy machinery at all hours and I want to ensure that is taken into account,” said the Deputy Lord Mayor.

Alderman Jim Speers said that having been down this road just the other day he was of the belief that to abandon it would be “absolute madness”.

“From the farming point of view to divert that traffic from a wide area of countryside, through a new development would be madness, anyone would understand that is not a common sense approach,” said Alderman Speers.

“I fully support comments that have been made and I would not like to be in a position where this Council would support diverting of traffic from a wide country area through a housing development.”

Ulster Unionist Councillor Sam Nicholson said he was in agreement that to divert the traffic through this development would be “crazy” and asked if the abandonment would “stymie” the development.

SDLP Councillor Joe Nelson said this is standard practice by the DfI and councillors should be allowed to submit responses to it. However, he did dispute the notion that a corporate policy on the issue was required.

“I don’t believe a corporate policy is needed,” said Cllr Joe Nelson. “It is not under Council influence. We should make the comments that we have heard and let them [DfI] go off and decide whether there is sufficent backlash against this abandonment.

“They do not abandon things ‘willy nilly’. If Council wanted to take a corporate policy on road abandonment it would need to be well thought out and wide ranging.”

Alderman Anderson said he was “dissapointed but not surprised” at they way the debate had gone and asked if Councillor O’Hanlon knew the area.

“This may not be very nice for me to raise but I would remined Councillor O’Hanlon that as a representative I have been asked by the Orange Order to raises these concerns and whether he likes it or not, they are part of this community,” said Alderman Anderson.

“This is not simply about a parade route, there are sensitivities around that issue, we all know that.

“We should be making an effort, as a corporate body, to ensure all communities are represented in the best possible way and what I am proposing is that we ask the Department to keep the road as a pedestrian walkway at least.

“Closing it down will cause great hurt to anyone who is going to purchase these houses.

“I propose that Council responds to road service expressing objections to this abandonment and call for it to be kept fully open to meet the needs of the rural community.”

Councillor Darryn Causby said this was a “fairly sensible” approach and seconded the proposal.

Sinn Fein councillor Paul Duffy then addressed the issue.

“To tell you the truth I have no problem with the proposal,” said Cllr Duffy. “I have also been contacted by residents in the local area about this proposal and I have no objection to this proposal what so ever.”

At this point, Councillor Sam Nicholson proposed that Council defers its response for a month to seek more information with regard to traffic flow in the area.

This proposal was seconded by Councillor O’Hanlon.

With the issue heading to a vote, Alderman Speers said he didn’t think the two proposals were necessarily in “conflict” with each other.

“What Councillor Nicholson is proposing is made from the context of the planning committee,” said Alderman Speers.

“If common sense is to prevail a united decision is needed. Moving rural traffic into an urban development on the edge of Portadown is not common sense.

“I would have no trouble supporitng what has been said but I think it may be wise to wait. When members see the facts we will be in a much better position to take a corporate view.

“I would appeal to members to take a step back, get the facts, let it come back in a month’s time and then endorse a corporate view.”

Alderman Anderson said this was not a planning issue as the houses were already well underway.

“I don’t think you have to be a very smart person to realise this is going to cause issues further down the road,” said Alderman Anderson.

“I believe this Council, as a corporate body can make this decision tonight.”

Councillor Nicholson’s proposal to delay the response for a month was put to a vote. It failed to gain the support of the chamber with the 18 DUP and Sinn Fein representatives present voting against it.

The 14 UUP, SDLP and Alliance representatives present voted in support of Councillor Nicholson’s proposal.

Alderman Anderson’s proposal, to write to the Department making clear the objections expressed to this abandonment was then brought to the floor.

The proposal was supported with the 27 DUP, UUP and Sinn Fein members present, voting in support of the proposal.

Only three councillors, the SDLP’s Thomas O’Hanlon and Joe Nelson and the Alliance Party’s Peter Lavery voted against the proposal with SDLP councillor Thomas Larkham choosing to abstain.