Tempers flare as bonfire scheme is unchanged

THERE were inflammatory outbursts in the council chamber at Mossley Mill last week as moves to amend Antrim and Newtownabbey’s Bonfire Programme were overturned thanks to the chair using his casting vote.

Antrim and Newtownabbey councillors declined a request to review terms and conditions of the council’s bonfire safety programme, at a Community Development Committee meeting on Monday.

In September 2025, a Sinn Fein proposal that sanctions should be imposed on community groups that breached the terms and conditions of the scheme was voted through.

The committee heard that flags had been burned at four sites, including a flag depicting the Irish provinces at Ballycraigy, in incidents described by the PSNI as ‘hate crimes’.

It was also said that asbestos had been found by a contractor helping to remove the remains of the Neillsbrook bonfire in Randalstown.

Officers recommended that funding for participation in the bonfire management programme for those sites which breached terms and conditions, was reduced in 2026.

However at full council at the end of that month, the decision to impose financial penalties was overturned and it was agreed the existing programme would remain in place.

At the Community Development Committee last week, a report said that in 2025, the council supported the delivery of 23 family fun events associated with bonfire sites with funding of £3,500 per event with an overall cost of estimated budget of £171,000.

It said that an estimated £50,000 in financial assistance from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is anticipated in the coming months which, if secured, will reduce the council’s contribution in 2026 to £121,000.

Council officers have reported that groups ‘have expressed their frustration’ that despite their best efforts they have been unable to eliminate flag burning at sites.

The report said that the programme seeks to ‘work with and support local communities to bring about improvements in bonfire management, particularly in terms of inclusivity, safety and increased family atmosphere’.

The programme replaced legacy Antrim Borough scheme, which collapsed in 2016 amidst allegation of conflicts of interest, with businesses linked to former councillors receiving funds for the running of fun days.

Four sites are located on council owned land, including Neillsbrook, while the report heard that two sites ‘are unlikely to participate in this year's programme’ - thought to be Mallusk Gardens in Antrim and Ladyhill.

Speaking at Monday’s meeting, Antrim Town DUP Councillor Paul Dunlop proposed approving a recommendation to agree the 2026 bonfire management programme, noting the ‘complex report’, seconded by party colleague and committee vice chair, Matthew Brady.

Dunsilly Alliance rep Jay Burbank proposed an amendment to the wording of the terms and conditions in relation to sanctions for non-compliance be changed from ‘may’ to ‘will’.

The policy states: “Failure to comply with the terms and conditions may result in a reduction in funding applied either within the current year or the following year as appropriate. The level of reduction will be determined by the council on a case-by-case basis.”

The proposal was seconded by Sinn Fein Councillor Taylor McGrann.

He asked if the two groups did withdraw, could funding be spent on ‘diversionary’ work in summer, particularly at V36, where he said there was ‘fighting between communities’.

Director of Community and Culture Ursula Fay said she could bring back a follow-up report and take on board the decision, but it was ‘up to members’ how money was re-profiled.

With votes tied at 7-7, committee chair, Dunsilly UUP man Stewart Wilson used his casting vote and the amendment fell.

A vote on the proposal by Councillor Dunlop was then carried by ten members in favour and four abstentions.

Airport Sinn Fein Councillor Maighréad Ní Chonghaile said she thought Councillor Burbank’s suggestion was ‘quite responsible from a corporate organisation perspective’ following previous breaches in compliance.

“It was quite a creative way to have brought in an extra layer of safeguarding for this year.”

She asked that, notwithstanding the progress made since 2016, what extra layers were in place to prevent ‘sectarian hate crimes and bigotry’ .

Councillor Ní Chonghaile said that it would have been a good stance ‘for us as an organisation’ and would act as a commendation for groups aligning with the terms and conditions.

“Are we just hoping it won’t be same as last year? Are we going down the same road without any change or any added layer of safety or safeguarding?”

Ms Fay said that elected members made decisions and officers brought forward reports.

“In September, members made it clear they didn’t want to make a change. Officers will continue to do what they do to achieve significant improvement over time, engaging very closely with the groups involved, delivering sessions about how to be responsible in relation to cultural celebrations and working closely with statutory bodies – PSNI, Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and Housing Executive and carry out inspections from collection of materials to lighting of bonfires.”

She added that there was ‘significant financial support’ expected from the Housing Executive and that ‘we hope the messaging continues to get through’.

She said that there would be a report on how the programme was delivered, post-July.

Councillor Wilson acknowledged that the asbestos issue took place in his own District Electoral Area and said that the bonfire organisers had already engaged with council officers and were ‘ready to work with all the statutory partners’.

Ulster Unionist Councillor Stephen Cosgrove stated: “There is no doubt that the council has made continuous strides to work with communities and this is where we have to congratulate officers and community groups.

“We cannot be constantly going down this road. People will take things into their own hands, it is not the groups to blame, but rogue people who at the eleventh hour do something they should not be doing.

“To have a punitive approach does not help anybody. We need to work with, not work against, the community groups, ultimately.

“That was what the amendment was about, it was punitive. It shouldn’t happen, of course, but it should be ‘may’.”

Councillor McGrann asked if new groups were welcome to apply, and was told by Ms Fay that there were 26 recognised sites and that the ‘list of sites had been closed for some time’.

She added that as the programme was aimed at reducing the incidence of bonfires, that explained the logic of a closed list.

“What if a group decides to get on board? Where’s the progress?” Councillor McGrann asked.

“There were four breaches last year and God knows how many the year before. Should we not be looking at all sites, and bonfires in Nationalist areas?”

Ms Fay replied: “It is down to you as members. We have had this discussion. If you wish to expand or seek to add recognised sites, it is your prerogative.”

Councillor Brady said: “I understand my colleagues’ concerns. I understand there were a few incidents last year, and there has been engagement on the ground around it all, I would err on the side of caution.”

He questioned how much was in the remit of the council and drew attention to the work of the statutory partners, which he said, can ‘stand over how well these sites are looked after’.

Councillor Burbank commended the work that had been done in his own DEA, and welcomed those groups that were coming forward.

“We should try and work together. We had a robust discussion on policy but we did not exercise discretion.” he said.

“We voted not to apply sanctions. We voted to overturn the sanctions in the policy. An a la carte approach is not helpful and I will keep trying to make improvements for the ratepayers. I am not going to stop trying to make improvements for the people I represent.”

Deputy Mayor, Alliance Councillor Julie Gilmour said there are bonfires and groups in her DEA which she described as ‘a model of good practice and make sure the event has a family friendly focus and is welcoming to everybody’.

However she added that there were ongoing frustrations in other areas.

“A member of a community group that burnt flags posted photographs and appeared almost to be delighting in the burning of flags,” she claimed.

“I understand we cannot be punitive, but some people do not want to be worked with and we cannot even impose that a minor amount of their funding is lost

“Some of them are sticking two fingers up to council, and certain community members are asking, what is impetus for us, we don’t break the rules? I don’t want to go on, I am not a conflict type person, but the first time sanctions were suggested, we couldn’t even do that.

“It is not leadership to say ‘you can do whatever you want even though you have signed up to a policy’.”

DUP Councillor Mark Cooper, who does not sit on the committee asked: “I always look at this in view, that if all 26 sites pulled away from this programme, what does that look like for our borough and our communities and those who advocate for environmental issues?

“The last report detailed four incidents, one I was very concerned about. The PSNI reported a hate crime but gave no detail or photographic evidence. On the 11th, police reported a flag in a particular area, in a neighbouring DEA. That flag was removed but police continued it as a hate crime, it was reported in an afternoon and after engagement with the community it was removed. It was not there, I know it was not there.

“Whenever things are reported it needs to go through to the correct people, and that is the police, not the council.

“I am concerned that from a certain side of the chamber, there is always finger-pointing towards directors and officers. Four sites are on our land as a council, the rest are a mixture of lands, we have to bear that in mind.”

He said that the council’s final inspection was at 6pm on July 11.

“Thereafter it is up to the PSNI. If there is evidence and times, in front of this committee and council, then sanctions should take place, I have no hesitation in saying that and will stand over that.”

Councillor Ní Chonghaile said that her party had brought physical evidence to the chamber.

“It was interesting to see the response at the time, we do want to work with and not against people, our commendation for Ursula and her team is unquestionable. It is a lack of wanting to work with and it starts in this chamber.

“It appears sometimes, purposeful of not, there is a lack of wanting to work with other members in a civic forum. People are getting stuck in the mud and playing policy. It is not good leadership.

“A full review (of the Bonfire Management Policy) was voted down at full council and now we cannot agree to the suggestion of a one-word change in the policy. It is not setting a good example in ‘working with’.

“We should be absolutely striving towards being the very best, by leading by example, but change is voted down. It is all poor practice.

“We should not be seen as working against. We should be setting out where we would like them to be and taking them with us.

“The biggest failing is a lack of togetherness and lack of working with the people in this chamber. We should be living our policy in full. We have the policy and we are not working ‘with’, never mind with the community groups or the rogue people around the community groups.”

This provoked an outburst from DUP Alderman Stephen Ross, who said: “The director spoke about final inspections. right up until the bonfire is lit. Last year council officers were left out on a limb by the PSNI to go out around the inspections on their own.

“After the 10th of July has nothing to do with council. Many of us worked in this chamber before 2016 and people had to show leadership and put their necks on the line.

“If they (bonfire groups) pull out of this, it will come back to the same reps who put their necks on the line, leadership is putting your neck on the line.”

Referencing Sinn Fein, he continued: “When they are eulogising terrorists in a bar in Toome, that’s what I have issues with, how dare they?”

“I for one will never engage with people who supported blowing up and murdering people. I never will. Now they are talking about Iran.

“They can’t remember or forget what they have done. If they want to talk about international situations they should leave it to their MPs, but they would need to turn up.”

Alderman Ross added: “They won’t go past what they were as an organisation.”

Speaking after the meeting, Councillor Burbank said: “I was very disappointed that my proposal to change one word failed.

“Political unionism has made it clear it wishes to give not an inch, not a word or not a jot to improve the bonfire protocol.

“We are set to pour £170k plus into any cleanup costs of ratepayers’ money into this unchanged policy.

“Reasonable people everywhere, in estates with bonfires and estates without bonfires, cannot understand why the DUP and UUP remain determined to block any sanctions for wrongdoing.

“This marks another episode in a repeated string of leadership failures of political unionism who remain intent on not finding any solutions to help us live together.”