Mark Ashton plaque inside Portrush Town Hall, Revised Equality Screening

S75 Equality And Good Relations Screening Form

General Information

This is a revised project.

Operational Area: Civic Buildings.

Title: Mark Ashton plaque inside Portrush Town Hall.

Brief Summary

A Notice of Motion was brought forward to Council and subsequently agreed, supporting the erection of a memorial plaque to the late Mark Ashton, a former resident of Portrush.

Applications have been received in line with the Council’s Public Memorials Policy Framework (2024), requesting installation of a commemorative plaque within Portrush Town Hall.

The proposal is subject to:
• Council memorial policy criteria and scoring matrix
• Section 75 Equality and Good Relations considerations
• Public consultation and EQIA process.

What is it trying to achieve? (intended aims and outcomes)

The proposed memorial plaque aims to:

• Acknowledge Mark Ashton’s connection to Portrush
• Recognise his contribution as an LGBTQ+ rights and workers’ rights activist
• Provide a commemorative marker within a civic building setting
• Ensure compliance with Council’s Public Memorials Policy Framework
• Support inclusive representation in civic commemoration practice.

Who owns and who implements each element of the function, service, policy, procedure, project, strategy, plan or guidance?

The family will fund the plaque and it will be fitted by the Council in a place that is mutually agreed by both parties.

• Lead Service Area: Civic Buildings Service (Council).
• Policy Lead: Leisure & Development Directorate (Community & Culture).
• Installation Responsibility: Civic Buildings Service.
• Funding: External (family contribution).
• Installation Arrangements: To be agreed between Council and applicant, subject to approvals.

Other policies etc. which have a bearing on this function, service, policy, procedure, project, strategy, plan or guidance?

Strategies:

• Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council Public Memorials Policy Framework (2024).
• Council Equality Scheme (Section 75 duties).
• Good Relations Framework.

Available Evidence

Evidence to help inform the screening process may take many forms. Public authorities should ensure that their screening decision is informed by relevant data.What evidence/information (both qualitative and quantitative have you gathered to inform this function, service, policy, procedure, project, strategy, plan or guidance? Specify details for relevant Section 75 categories.

• 2021 Census (NISRA) demographic data.
• Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (2021).
• Applicant provided digital engagement evidence.
• Public petition (28,972 signatures).
• Council Notice of Motion (June 2021).
• Consultation submissions (support and objection).
• Applicant provided digital engagement evidence.
  

Digital Engagement Evidence (Applicant-Reported)
Engagement data indicates predominantly supportive responses across social media platforms, including:

• Facebook engagement across official and personal pages.
• Community-based platforms (e.g. Portrush community pages).
• LGBTQ+ advocacy networks (e.g. LGSM Pride Instagram)

Combined totals are as follows:

• Total views: approximately 6,234.
• Total likes: 518.
• Total comments: 86 (of which one expressed opposition, with the remainder supportive).
• Total shares: 45

This includes engagement across the applicant’s own social media platforms and wider community pages.

Engagement demonstrates:

• High levels of visibility.
• Predominantly positive sentiment.
• Strong support within advocacy and community networks.

The proposal was also circulated to:

• Political representatives.
• Trade unions.
• Community organisations.
• Cultural organisations.
• Faith-based stakeholders

Reported feedback was broadly supportive.


Stakeholder Engagement

Written support has been received from two primary user groups of the Town Hall, namely Ballywillan Drama Group and Portrush Theatre Company.

Organisational and Individual Submissions

Nine additional letters and emails have been received in support of the proposal from organisations at local, regional and national level.

Mr Ashton’s immediate family has also confirmed their support for both the proposed location and wording of the plaque.

Additional 24 emails have been received in support of the proposal.

Objections

Approximately 31 objections have been received to date.

Key Issues Raised

1. Consultation Adequacy and Representativeness
   o Concerns regarding reliance on social media data
   o Questions about geographic spread and representativeness
   o Lack of clarity on participant eligibility
2. Stakeholder Inclusion
   o Perceived limited engagement with key groups
   o Specific concerns regarding under-engagement with faith-based stakeholders
3. Balance and Fairness
   o Perception that engagement reflects supportive networks disproportionately
   o Concerns about overall balance of consultation findings
4. Value-Based Concerns
   o Objections linked to political associations and activism
   o Questions regarding appropriateness of commemoration
5. Local Connection and Site Suitability
   o Queries regarding strength of connection to Portrush
   o Concerns about suitability of Town Hall location
6. Governance and Community Impact
   o Concerns about Council neutrality
   o Potential for community division
   o Need for transparent, evidence-based decision-making
7. Call for Further Consultation
   o Requests for broader, more inclusive consultation.

Section 75 Category, Details of Evidence/Information

• The Census statistics in 2021 collated by NISRA statistics detailed the usual resident population of Causeway Coast & Glens Local Government District to be 141,746 accounting for 7.45% of the N.I. total. Statistical information with regards to the Districts makeup and individuals therein was also reviewed.
• This is a small seaside resort town with a population of 6,150 and the location of the memorial within the Town Hall has been considered to ensure no impact on equality and Good relations within the area.

Religious Beliefs

The 2021 Census outlined:

Religion / religion brought up in

Census 2021 CC&G Borough Council Northern Ireland
Roman Catholic:
CC&G Borough Council 40.12% Northern Ireland 45.70%

Protestant & Other Christian (including Christian related):
CC&G Borough Council 51.17% Northern Ireland 43.48%

Other Religions:
CC&G Borough Council 0.78% Northern Ireland 1.50%

None/Not stated:
CC&G Borough Council 7.94% Northern Ireland 9.32%

Political Opinion

The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (2021) provides the following information on the political parties people in Northern Ireland feel closest to (this information is not available at local government level)3:

Causeway Coast & Glens Borough Council’s political representation as of May 2026 is as follows:
CC&GBC (2026)
DUP: 32.5%
SF0: 30%
Alliance: 12.5%
UUP: 7.5%
SDLP: 5%
TUV: 5%
PUP: 2.5%
Independent: 5%

Council has received 25 objections. Among these responses concerns were raised regarding neutrality and ideological associations.

Screening Consideration:
While the proposal is commemorative and historical in nature and does not promote political ideology, perception-based sensitivities may arise, particularly in relation to neutrality and community relations.

Racial Group

On Census Day 21 March 2021 the resident population was:

The 2021 Census detailed 98.55% of our population is white, with 1.45% from an ethnic background. The largest minority ethnic groups in Causeway Coast and Glens are the Chinese (0.22%), Indian (0.15%) and Filipino (0.10%). The proportion of ethnic groups from a non-white background has increased in Causeway Coast and Glens over the last 10 years by 0.95% slightly increasing the diversity in our population.

Country of Birth (basic detail)
Table MS-A16: Census 2021 CC&G Borough Council
Europe: United Kingdom: Northern Ireland 127,171
Europe: United Kingdom: England 5,991
Europe: United Kingdom: Scotland 1,556
Europe: United Kingdom: Wales 234
Europe: Republic of Ireland 1,931
Europe: Other EU countries 2,733
Europe: Other non-EU countries 149
Africa 384
Middle East and Asia 825
North America, Central America and Caribbean 499
South America 55
Antarctica, Oceania and Other 219

Number of people born outside UK/Ireland in CC&G Borough Council for the years 2011 and 2021 (Census 2021)
Number of people born outside UK/Ireland:
2011: 4,100
2021: 4,900

Of the total population in Causeway Coast and Glens 3.45% of our residents were born outside the UK/Ireland as demonstrated in the table above this is an increase over the last 10 years of 0.56%.



National identity (person based) (Census 2021), CC&G Borough Council
British only 38%
Irish only 22%
Northern Irish only 23%
British & Irish only <1%
British & Northern Irish only 9%
Irish & Northern Irish only 2%
British, Irish & Northern Irish only 1%
Other national identities 5%


Main Language (Census 2021) CC&G Borough Council
English 98%
Other languages 2%


Although our population is becoming more diverse 97.8% speak English as their main language. The other main languages spoken are Polish, Irish and Portuguese closely followed by Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese and Cantonese.


Main Language (Count) (Census 2021): MS-B12a All usual residents aged 3 and over CC&G Borough Council
English 134,147 (97.80%)
Polish 1,524 (1.11%)
Lithuanian 49 (0.04%)
Irish 231 (0.17%)
Romanian 79 (0.06%)
Portuguese 39 (0.03%)
Arabic 63 (0.05%)
Bulgarian 66 (0.05%)
Chinese (not otherwise specified) 68 (0.05%)
Slovak 32 (0.02%)
Hungarian 18 (0.01%)
Spanish 50 (0.04%)
Latvian 36 (0.03%)
Russian 29 (0.02%)
Tetun 6 (0.00%)
Malayalam 24 (0.02%)
Tagalog/Filipino 46 (0.03%)
Cantonese 69 (0.05%)
Other languages 584 (0.43%)
All Residents 137,160

It is important to note that while other family members may be able to support translation, 1.30% or 750 households do not speak English as their main language and therefore would require translation services.

Household language (Count) (Census 2021): MS-B11a CC&G Borough Council
All people aged 16+ years have English as a main language: 56,063 (97.37%)
At least one but not all people aged 16+ years have English as a main languager: 600 (1.04%)
No people aged 16+ years have English as a main language, but at least one person aged 3-15 years has English as a main language: 163 (0.28%)
No people have English as a main language: 750 (1.30%)
Total: 57,576


Knowledge of Irish (Census 2021) CC&G Borough Council
No ability in Irish 90%
Some ability in Irish 10%


Knowledge of Ulster-Scots (Census 2021) CC&G Borough Council
No ability in Ulster-Scots 81%
Some ability in Ulster-Scots 19%

Screening Consideration:
No differential impact identified, however translated consultation materials may be required to ensure inclusivity, as 1.30% or 750 households do not speak English as their main language

Age

Age: (NISRA Census 2021 – Table MS-A02)[1]

[1] Source : Northern Ireland Statistics website: www.nisra.gov.uk census-2021-ms-a02.xlsx (live.com)
Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO.

[2] Source : Northern Ireland Statistics website: 2020-based interim population projections - statistical bulletin (nisra.gov.uk)
Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO.


It can be seen from the 2 tables above, that in the 44 and under groupings our borough statistics have decreased and are lower than the Northern Ireland average. Whereas the number of individuals aged 45 years and upwards has increased and our percentages in these groupings are higher than the Northern Ireland Average.

This is a trend which is forecast to continue as identified in NISRA’s 2020-based Interim Population Projections for Northern Ireland, which states that "by mid-2027, the number of people aged 65 and over is projected to overtake the number of children" .

No differential impact identified.

Marital Status

Marital Status:

Marital status by Council area (most recent figures available from Census 2021):

Causeway Coast and Glens follows a similar pattern to that of Northern Ireland in that the highest percentage of residents are married (47.81% compared with the NI average of 45.59%). The patterns are all higher than the NI average with the exception of Individuals in a civil partnership lens at 0.14% is slightly lower than the NI average of 0.18%.

No differential impact identified.

Sexual orientation

The 2021 census for the first time included a question on sexual orientation.

The proposed memorial will have no negative impact on any section 75 group.

Screening Consideration: Recognition of LGBTQ+ contribution presents a potential positive equality impact in terms of visibility and inclusion.

Men and Women Generally

Gender: (Census 2021 – Table MS-A07) [1]

No differential impact identified.

Dependents

In Causeway Coast and Glens 28% of households include dependent children, compared with the NI average of 29.21%.

In Causeway Coast and Glens 9.61% of households comprise of a lone parent and a dependent child or children, compared with the NI average of 10.58%.

No differential impact identified.

Disability

The Census 2021 showed that 35.95% of our residents has a long-term health condition or illness which limits their daily activities or the work they can do, which is slightly higher than the NI average of 34.67%.

In our borough long-term pain or discomfort affects the most individuals, followed by mobility or dexterity that limits physical activities.

Source: NISRA, Census 2021, tables MS-D03, MS-D04 through to MS-D16

Screening Consideration:
The Town Hall is physically accessible, however accessible consultation materials may be required to ensure inclusivity.

Screening Questions (1)

1. What is the likely impact on equality of opportunity for those affected by this function, service, policy, procedure, project, strategy, plan or guidance?

Section 75 Category - Positive impact (it could benefit), Neutral, Negative impact (it could disadvantage).

Gender
Women Neutral impact.
Men Neutral impact.
Transgender men/women Neutral impact.
Other please specify Neutral impact.

Reason: No differential impact identified.

Race
The categories used in the Race section are those used in the 2011 census. Consideration should be given to the needs of specific communities within the broad categories.

Asian: Neutral impact.
Black: Neutral impact.
Chinese: Neutral impact.
Mixed Race White: Neutral impact.

Reason: No differential impact identified.

Disability
Long term health impairment could include mental health problems, asthma, heart conditions, chronic fatigue etc.

Neutral impact.

Reason: No differential impact identified.

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual, lesbian, gay men, bisexual, others.

Potential positive impact.

Reason: Recognition of LGBTQ+ contribution presents a potential positive equality impact in terms of visibility and inclusion.

Age

Older People Neutral impact.
Younger people and children Neutral impact.

Reason: No differential impact identified.

Political Opinion

Potential minor negative impact.

Reason: Council has received 31 objections raising concerns about the proposal’s perceived political associations. Although the proposal is commemorative and historical rather than political, some respondents have identified sensitivities relating to neutrality and community relations.

Religious Belief

impact.

Reason: Objections raised cultural and faith-based concerns. However, the proposal is commemorative and does not reference any religious beliefs or ideologies. Some respondents nevertheless identified perception-based sensitivities, which may warrant further consideration through an EQIA.

Martial Status

Neutral impact.

Reason: The proposed memorial will have no negative impact on marital status.

Dependants

Neutral impact.

Reason: The proposed memorial will have no negative impact on those with or without dependents.

Screening Questions (2)

2. Are there opportunities to better promote equality of opportunity for people within any of the Section 75 categories?

Gender

(Women, Men, Transgender men/women , Other please specify)

No specific relevance to project.

Race

The categories used in the Race section are those used in the 2011 census. Consideration should be given to the needs of specific communities within the broad categories.
(Asian, Black, Chinese, Mixed race, White, Other please specify)

No specific relevance to project.

Disability

Long term health impairment could include mental health problems, asthma, heart conditions, chronic fatigue etc.

No specific relevance to project.

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual, lesbian, gay men, bisexual, others

Positive impact identified, particularly in relation to sexual orientation through recognition and visibility of LGBTQ+ history.

Age

Older People, Younger people and children

No specific relevance to project.

Political Opinion

Additional consultation and an EQIA may provide insight to test perceived impact.

From additional limited feedback received, there appears to be perceptions of sensitivities (around differing religious views)

Religious Belief

Additional consultation and an EQIA may provide insight to test perceived impact.

From additional limited feedback received, there appears to be perceptions o sensitivities (around differing political views).

Marital Status

No specific relevance to project.

Dependants

No specific relevance to project.

Screening Questions (3)

3. To what extent is the policy likely to impact on good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group?

Section 75 Category: Religious Belief

Details of policy impact: The proposal does not introduce symbolic marking or text.

The Town Hall’s internal civic setting significantly reduces any potential perceived impact on the community. Consultation evidence provided by the applicant indicates broad acceptance across stakeholder groups, although a limited number of objections highlight some perception-based sensitivities that may warrant an EQIA.

Potential impact– test with EQIA

Section 75 Category: Political Opinion

Details of policy impact: The proposal does not introduce symbolic or territorial marking.

Its location within the Town Hall’s internal civic setting reduces the likelihood of wider community impact.

Consultation evidence submitted by the applicant indicates broad acceptance across stakeholder groups. However, a small number of objections point to perception-based sensitivities that may warrant further consideration through an EQIA.

Potential impact– test with EQIA

Section 75 Category: Racial Group

Level of impact: None - No Impact on any racial group.

Screening Questions (4)

4. Are there opportunities to better promote good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group?

Religious Belief: Yes. With context, clarity of purpose and feedback from additional consultation and engagement.

Political Opinion: Yes. With context, clarity of purpose and feedback from additional consultation and engagement.

Racial Group: No. Does not affect any racial group.

Additional Considerations

Generally speaking people can fall into more than one Section 75 category. Taking this into consideration, are there any potential impacts of the function, service, policy, procedure, project, strategy, plan or guidance on people with multiple identities? (For example: disabled minority ethnic people, disabled women, young Protestant men, young lesbians, gay and bisexual people.)

Not known.

Provide details of data on the impact of the function, service, policy, procedure, project, strategy, plan or guidance on people with multiple identities. Specify the relevant Section 75 categories concerned.

Refer to Available Evidence section within the report.

Disability Considerations

Is there an opportunity to better promote positive attitudes towards disabled people by altering this function, service, policy, procedure, project, strategy, plan or guidance?

No.

Is there an opportunity to encourage participation by disabled people in public life by altering this function, service, policy, procedure, project, strategy, plan or guidance?

No.

Please give further information and examples:

Not relevant.

Screening Decision

Likely Impact Minor.

If the decision is to subject the policy to an equality impact assessment (i.e. likely impact – Major), please provide details of the reasons for this:
N/A

If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment (i.e. likely impact = Minor) the Council should consider if the policy should be mitigated or an alternative policy be introduced:

A full EQIA is recommended as part of further consultation because of:

• Additional feedback highlighting the need to test the proposal’s sensitivity.
• Mixed consultation responses, including support and objections.
• Concerns about how representative the engagement was.
• Perceived potential implications for good relations, which should be tested further.
• Relevance to Section 75 categories, particularly sexual orientation and political perception.

Summary outcome:

The screening identified a mixed consultation response, including 25 objections raising cultural, political, faith-based and place-based concerns about the proposal. At this stage, the key equality considerations are:

• the potential perception of ideological association, although this is not the policy intent;
• the need to demonstrate further balanced and representative engagement and consultation;
• the need to address any perceived consultation bias; and
• the opportunity to support LGBTQ+ inclusion and representation.

If the decision is not to conduct an equality impact assessment (i.e. likely impact = None), please provide details of the reasons for this:

--

Mitigation

When the Council concludes that the likely impact is ‘Minor’ and an equality impact assessment is not to be conducted, the Council may consider mitigation to lessen the severity of any equality impact, or the introduction of an alternative policy to better promote equality of opportunity or good relations.
Can the policy/decision be amended or changed or an alternative policy introduced to better promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations?

No. Any potential sensitivities (primarily around differing social, religious or political views) are limited, contextual, and mitigated by the nature and location of the proposal. It is being considered within council’s Memorial Policy which has already been subject to EQIA.

If YES, give the reasons to support your decision, together with the proposed changes/amendments or alternative policy:

--

Timetabling And Prioritising

If the policy/decision has been ‘screened in’ for equality impact assessment, then please answer the following questions to determine its priority for timetabling the equality impact assessment.
On a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 being the lowest priority and 3 the highest, assess the policy in terms of its priority for equality impact assessment.

Priority Criterion, Rating (1 to 3)
Effect on equality of opportunity and good relations 3
Social Need 2
Effect on people’s daily lives 2
Relevance to the Council’s functions 1

Monitoring

Please outline proposals for future monitoring of the policy/decision:

Councils Memorial policy and procedures will be implemented and reviewed by the close of 2026 and on an annual basis thereafter.

Approval And Authorisation

Screened and Approved By: Head of Service, Community & Culture 22/05/26