All twenty Councillors were present for DDC's meeting on November 21st 1977. Also present were Council Clerk Allen, Admin/Finance Officer Campbell, Chief Public Health Inspector Jones and Chief Building Control Officer Samuel Connors. The minutes of that meeting record the following;

"26/13 (a) Alleged Public Health Nuisance - 56 Carlisle Park, Ballynahinch (HW/1476) The Chairman referred to Council Meeting 7th November 1977 (Ref. 24/12 [a] ) when it had been agreed to defer consideration of the District Chief Public Health Inspector's Report on alleged public health nuisance at 56 Carlisle Park, Ballynahinch to allow for circulation of the Report, copy of which had been circulated with the Agenda. The Clerk advised of the confidentiality of a letter dated 7th November 1977 received from Mr. Joyce owner of 54 Carlisle Park, Ballynahinch. It was agreed on the proposal of Councillor Smyth P.J. seconded by Councillor Sloan that the Council go "Into Committee" for the purpose of reading the letter.

[By going "into committee" the Council was saying to the members of the press who were present that the contents of the letter were not for their ears.]

The Clerk read the letter received from Mr. Joyce. On the proposal of Councillor Maxwell seconded by Councillor Smyth P.J. it was agreed that the Council resume and discuss the item on the Agenda. ACTION: After considerable discussion it was proposed by Councillor Smyth E.M. 'That no action be taken by the Council on the Report'.

This proposal failed to find a seconder.

[ DDC had to be seen to do something in order to try to keep within the law and their fear was that I would be prepared to push them further. ]

It was then agreed on the proposal of Councillor McVeigh seconded by Councillor O'Donoghue:

'That the Clerk to the Council together with Building Control and Public Health Officers meet with the owners of the properties and the Building Contractor to seek a solution to the problem of alleged smoke nuisance. Failing agreement the owners should be advised to seek legal advice on the matter. COUNCILLOR SMYTH E.M. WISHED TO BE RECORDED AS VOTING AGAINST THIS DECISION AND COUNCILLOR SMYTH P.J. AS ABSTAINING."

It is recorded at paragraph 17 of the Commissioner for Complaints Report CC 19/78, quote,

"He (Mr. Jones the District Chief Public Health Inspector) requested that the Council consider the authorisation of a Statutory Notice to be served on the owner of No. 54 requiring him to remove his fireplace, repair the defect and seal the voids in the terralux bricks at the side of his fireplace."

Why was this statement not recorded in the minutes of that Council meeting of November 21st 1977?

Such an important proposal by the DCPHI was recorded in the Council minutes in respect of the Dump at Lisbane Road, Saintfield and referred to and recorded at subsequent Council meetings.

It is my belief that the above request recorded at paragraph 17 of CC 19/78 was not in fact made at that Council meeting, but was only stated by DDC representatives to have been made at that meeting when they had to face the Commissioner's investigation in a desperate attempt to protect their illegal scheming.

It is my belief that the top Council Officers deliberately lied to the Commissioner for Complaints, just as they had earlier lied to me. At their meeting on September 19th 1977 Down District Councillors readily agreed to Mr. Jones's recommendation to authorise the issuing of a Statutory Notice in respect of a smoke nuisance at a dump out in the countryside near Saintfield. The occasional burning of rubbish created this smoke nuisance. This smoke was diluted hundreds of times before it reached the lungs of people in the surrounding area, yet it was considered to be of such a serious nature by the DDC's Public Health Inspectors as to warrant tough action. The Commissioner for Complaints stated in paragraph 30 of CC 19/78,

"I think it right to add that the chairman of the Council (Councillor Alfie Jameson), when I met him in the course of my investigation, put considerable emphasis on the fact that the Council was motivated only by a desire to find a fair and equitable solution for all concerned to the problems in this case and that it thought in December 1977 that a solution had been found. The chairman added that the Council would be failing in its duty if it accepted without consideration the recommendations of its officers and that it had been at pains to see the problems highlighted by Mr. Rice's representations from all aspects."

What utter rubbish. Alfie lied - again.

As has already been seen from just a glimpse at the minutes of Council meetings in Downpatrick, it was the done thing for Councillors to accept and rubber stamp the recommendations of the DCPHI without any consideration and as a result, in Mr. Jameson's own words, continually failed to do their duty. Councillor Jameson was also interviewed by Sunday News reporter Dave Culbert and a report of my case was published in that paper on Sunday December 12th 1977 just a month before the Commissioner for Complaints received my letter of complaint against DDC. Under the banner headline,

"Smoke nightmare haunts Down home"

there was an up-to-date report on my case. The following is at the end of that report;

"Down District Council however, insist the remedy lies in Mr. Rice's hands. 'We understand the remedy is simple if Mr. Rice would execute it', says Alfie Jameson. There is a defect in the building but the person responsible is the builder and Mr. Rice should pursue the matter with him.' The current building regulations were drafted in 1973, he added, - after the house was built."

Another one of Alfie's blatant lies.

Lying by Omission

Over two years later I was to learn that Councillor Jameson had very conveniently omitted to tell Dave Culbert that No. 56 along with the other three houses in this block of four houses were passed by Building control Officers as conforming to the very strict Housing (Owner Occupation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1956 [1956 Housing Regulations], thus obtaining for the building contractor a large publicly funded subsidy for each house.

It is a fact that the Commissioner for Complaints and his team during their whole investigation into this affair were ignorant of these Regulations and were not made aware of them by Mr. Jameson, his fellow councillors or their Officers.

As will be seen, the Commissioner did state in writing in CC 19/78 that No. 56 did not even comply with the very old and outdated Building Bye-laws! Cllr. Jameson told Dave Culbert that I should pursue the builder.

Cllr. Jameson knew when he got me the mortgage for No. 56 that it was not a new house and in legal terms I had no contract with the builder, therefore I could not in any way take a legal action against the builder on his own. I could have taken legal action against the builder if I also took legal action against DDC at the same time and on the same writ. My solicitor Mr. Chambers was working on my case at that time. It was very unfortunate that I did not know at that time that Mr. Chambers was also an active and prominent member of the SDLP and as Cllr. Jameson was also Chief Whip of the SDLP, he would have had some influence on Mr. Chambers' actions. Cllr.

Jameson did admit to Dave Culbert that there was a defect in the building and the person responsible was the builder. The question is now as it was then, why did Cllr. Jameson and his fellow Councillors and their professional officers not pursue the builder as they were later to pursue and punish me in a court of law for a much lesser offence and an offence I was forced into committing by DDC's negligence. Cllr. Jameson told the Commissioner for Complaints that the Council's desire was to find a fair and equitable solution to the problems in this case. There was only one problem. The building law had been broken. It is a criminal offence - as I was later to find out to my cost - to break housing or Building Regulations punishable by a fine and/or jail.

There is only one place to find an equitable solution in a situation where a criminal offence has been committed and that place is a court of law. If what is stated in the Commissioner for Complaints Report CC 19/78 at paragraph 17 were true and Mr. Jones did ask Down District Councillors for permission to issue a Statutory Notice to force, by law, my neighbour to stop the smoke nuisance from his fireplace polluting our home, and this was refused in the interests of finding,

"..a fair and equitable solution..",

Why did the same Councillors and the same officers not act in the same way with regard to the smoke problem at Lisbane? Or, more importantly, why did the Commissioner for Complaints not take this issue up with Down District Council when I late brought this to a later Commissioner's attention.

Council Set-up That Fell Down

Down District Councillors decided to hold a meeting between;

1. Mr. Joyce whom they now knew, in writing, would not be taking part in such a meeting,, who would not co-operate with either myself or Council Officers to help find a solution to the problem and had not co-operated for a whole year,

2. Mr. Brown the builder who it will be seen refused to even talk to Mr. Joyce about the repairs that should have been done to Mr. Joyce's house (See Mr. Jones's Report to DDC dated April 21st1978),

3. Mr. Allen the Clerk to DDC, who did not tell the Commissioner for Complaints the truth , causing the Commissioner to refuse to take up my complaint for four months,

4. Mr. Milligan who told Mr. Jones that the (party) wall was built in accordance with the Building Bye-laws when it was not, and omitted to say that the four houses in the block should have been built to the standards contained in the much more recent and more stringent Housing regulations of 1956,

5. myself, when my permission was not required to effect any repair in Mr. Joyce's house and at that time the issue was confined to No. 54 and the condition of the fireplace in No. 54. Only when that fireplace (and chimney-breast and flue) had been put right by the builder and the Council would I be in a position to have my own fireplace treated in the same way and then the other residents would of course get the same work done. In fact and in practice the trickery of DDC allowed the builder to do nothing other than sit in on a charade of a meeting for ninety minutes. The same trickery has caused the subsequent purchasers of No's 52, 54, 56 and 58 Carlisle Park to pay large sums of money for totally substandard dwellings.

The meeting specified by DDC was arranged for December 8th 1977 in the Council headquarters and Gemma and I arrived in good time. When we entered the large room for the meeting we recognised Mr. Brown, Mr. Milligan and Mr. Jones right away.

I then remembered seeing the very tall men present as the man who, a few years earlier, had asked my permission to allow the builder of the NIHE estate across the road from No. 11 to allow the builder, a Mr. Graham, to dump his excavations in the boggy ground beside No. 11. This tall man was Mr. Samuel Conners the Chief Building Control Officer over the whole South Eastern Group of five District Councils, the Group which the Belfast Telegraph had stated earlier had lost or was in danger of losing its insurance cover.

Mr. Conners was to be removed from his post at the end of 1984. The small man was Mr. Allen the clerk to DDC who chaired the meeting. Despite the fact that Mr. Joyce did not attend and was not represented even by his wife as owners of No. 54, the meeting was set in motion by Mr. Allen. I asked how agreement to repair Joyce's fireplace could be obtained in his absence, but Mr. Allen insisted that Mr. Joyces's permission was not needed to effect a repair as Mr. Conners and Mr. Milligan would explain.

I pointed out that my permission was not necessary to repair Mr. Joyce's house. It was explained to me that all that was necessary to stop the smoke entering No. 56 from the fireplace of No. 54 was for me to allow the building contractor into my house, No. 56, and plaster Mr. Joyce's half of the party wall from inside my house through the hole which I had opened up in my half of the party wall.

[I was now being asked to allow the hole in my wall to be used to help the Council out of a hole, after Mr. Jones, who was present, had threatened me with prosecution at a Council meeting for making the hole in the first place.]

I stated that this would be useless because the solid bricks at the back of Joyce's fireplace did not prevent the smoke escaping and even so there was not enough room between the two skins of the party wall to accommodate a coating of plaster (see paragraph 22 [viii] CC 19/78). To put plaster between the two skins of blocks in the party wall would cause a bulge in the wall in my hallway when the wall was rebuilt. We argued for a considerable length of time. At this time I had not obtained a copy of the letter from Mr. Jones to the Smoke Advisory Service dated October 4th 1977 which I have already referred to.

Suddenly the chairman of the meeting of the meeting, Mr. Allen, asked me very firmly, quote,

"Will you allow Mr. Brown into your house to plaster the back of Mr. Joyce's fireplace?"

I knew by the tone of his voice and the atmosphere in the room by that time that this was the end of their line. Well over an hour had passed and we were getting nowhere. I knew that if I said "Yes" and allowed Mr. Brown into my house to plaster the back of Joyce's fireplace that it would be useless, that the smoke would not be stopped, that the wall in my hallway would have to be reinstated and it would bulge out around the plaster, that when reinstated it would be reinstated with good solid brick and would be very difficult to remove again if the nuisance recurred as I knew it would and I most likely would not want to remove it again anyway.

I did not answer Mr. Allen's question. He asked me the same question again. I was beginning to get a little desperate as I realised that if I said "No", the meeting would break up, I would be blamed for its breaking up since with some justification it would be said that I would not allow the builder to do the work advocated by even the top Building Control Officers and the Council would wash its hands of the whole affair. I did not want this to happen. As my head spun all these thoughts around I heard the same question ring out from Mr. Allen for the third time. This time there was a severe note of impatience and finality about it.

Somehow I found my answer.

I told the meeting that I would allow Mr. Brown into my house to do anything as long as the work done complied with the building law. There was a distinct hush. The Council men looked at each other and Mr. Allen in a fit of temper used the word "bloody" in the final sentence of the meeting. The meeting broke up and nothing had been agreed to. The "meeting" had lasted one and a half hours. Our disappointment was soon forgotten and replaced with shock and anger when we read the report of our "meeting" made to Down District Councillors by Mr. Jones as heard by local newspaper reporters. The Down Recorder reported the following, under the heading,

"Smoke problem.

Down Councillors were pleased to learn on Monday evening that some sort of solution to the smoke problem at Mr. Gerry Rice's Ballynahinch home had been reached.
The Chief Public Health Inspector reported that a meeting had been held between Mr, Rice, his neighbour Mr. Joyce who lived in 54 Carlisle Park, and the building contractor Mr. Robert Brown. Mr. Brown had agreed to do some remedial work to the fireplaces in both homes and both Mr. Rice and Mr. Joyce had agreed to this.
Mr. Jones added that he hoped that the work would be completed this week. Cllr. Laverty extended his congratulations to the efforts of the Council officers.
Mrs. Ethel Smyth (Cllr.) said that she would reserve her congratulations until she had seen the work done."

The Mourne Observer reported the following under the heading,

"The end of a Ballynahinch smoke saga, Mr. Garth Jones the district Chief Public Health Inspector reported that the saga of the smoke problem at Carlisle Park, Ballynahinch was likely to be over. A meeting was held in the Council offices on December 8th, which was attended by the contractor Mr. Brown. He agreed to carry out remedial work at the back of the fireplaces in numbers 54 & 56. The owners, Messrs. Joyce and Rice had agreed to the work and the contractor hoped to begin this week.
The chairman Lt. Col. Denys Rowan-Hamilton congratulated Mr. Jones and his department for their efforts to solve the problem. This sentiment was supported by Mr. Danny Sloan. Mrs. E.M. Smyth - I'll reserve my congratulations until I see that the work is done."

Two different newspapers. Two different reporters. The message was the same. Official lies were told and are a matter of public record. The minutes of DDC meeting dated December 19th 1977 record;

"Report of District Chief Public Health Inspector Alleged Public Health Nuisance at 56 Carlisle Park, Ballynahinch
The Clerk referred to Council Meeting 21st November, 1977 (Ref: 26/13(a) ) and advised that the suggested meeting with the owners of the property and the Building Contractor together with Officers of the Council had been held. The District Chief Public Health Inspector reported on the Meeting and advised the Council that the Contractor had with permission of the owners involved, agreed to remedy the defect.
ACTION: The Council congratulated the Officers of the Council on their efforts to solve the problem."

What is Down District Council so afraid of? It was some time later that I received a copy of the official report of that meeting of December 8th 1977 from Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley MP, MEP. This report was signed by Mr. Jones. Copies of the report were sent to Mr. Allen, Mr. Conners and Mr. Milligan on December 14th 1977. It should be noted that a copy was not sent to Mr. Campbell the Council's Admin/Finance Officer. This report states that the meeting lasted from 4.00 p.m. until 5.30. p.m. and reads as follows;

"Mr. Allen explained that the purpose of this meeting was to get all parties concerned with the alleged smoke nuisance at 56 Carlisle Park, Ballynahinch together to discuss the matter and to find a solution. Mr. Jones stated that he felt that the discussion should only be concerned with the remedial work required to prevent the smoke from the fireplace of No. 54 Carlisle Park entering No. 56.
Discussion then ensued between Mr. Rice and Mr. Conners regarding the construction of the fireplaces in the block of houses 52-58 Carlisle Park and the use of terralux bricks in the party walls containing the fireplaces. Mr. Conners explained that the use of terralux bricks may not have been desirable for this type of construction but there was nothing in the Council Bye-laws that were in force at the time the houses were constructed about six years ago to prevent such use.
It was then mentioned that the Coal Advisory Body had inspected the property and has made certain recommendations. When Mr. Rice stated that he had received no report from the Coal Board, Mr. Jones read an extract from the report of the Coal Board regarding steps that should be taken viz.,


1. The open terralux bricks should be filled with concrete.

2. The wall behind the fireplace in No. 54 should be rendered to prevent leakage into the cavity and;

3. A further core and smoke test on the chimney of No. 54 to check for obstruction and airtightness after numbers a. and b. have been carried out.

Mr. Brown then stated that he did not like to see anyone affected by smoke and said that he was willing to carry out the remedial work himself. It was agreed between Mr. Conners and Mr. Brown that it would be better to remove the terralux bricks that formed the jambs of the fireplace and replace same with solid bricks.

It would be necessary of course to obtain the permission of Messrs. Rice and Joyce to do this work.
When Mr. Conners assured Mr. Rice that as the work contemplated was a structural alteration and one of his inspectors would ensure that it was carried out in accordance with the Council's Building Regulations agreement for the work to be carried out was given by Mr. Rice.

The meeting then concluded at 5.30 p.m. and a further discussion took place between Mr. Allen, Mr. Conners and Mr. Jones when Mr. Jones mentioned who was getting in touch with Mr. Joyce to obtain his permission to enter his house to do the work and Mr. Allen and Mr. Conners thought that Mr. Rice should approach Mr. Joyce regarding this matter.

I telephoned Mr. Rice on Friday 9th December 1977 and asked him if he would approach Mr. Joyce to get his permission to do the work but Mr. Rice said that he was unwilling as he felt that Mr. Joyce was not very helpful to him previously. On Monday 12th December 1977, I telephoned Mr. Joyce regarding this matter and he agreed that he would have no objection to Mr. Brown approaching him to do the work provided that satisfactory re-instatement would be made. A letter has now been sent to Mr. Brown asking him to consult with Mr. Joyce regarding the remedial work that he has agreed to carry out. DATE 14th December 1977 SIGNED G. Jones District Chief Public Health Inspector. Copies sent to Mr. Allen, Mr. Conners and Mr. Milligan -14 . 12 . 77 ."

I read these lies in utter amazement. In reality the meeting specified by DDC did not take place simply because the owner of the cause of the nuisance was not present at the meeting yet this excuse for that meeting was allowed by Down District Council's most senior Officers and Inspectors not only to go ahead but kept it going for one and a half hours to make it look as if the meeting did take place.

Had Mr. Jones reported back to the Council that Joyce was neither at the meeting nor willing to co-operate with the Public Health Inspectors, Down District Councillors could not have refused to issue a Statutory Notice against Joyce, hence this concoction. The alternative to agreement at the meeting as specified viz., that Joyce and myself should be advised to seek legal advice was also a cop-out and an distraction thrown in because certain councillors were party to this obvious conspiracy and knew in advance what Jones's Report to the Council would be irrespective of what took place at the December 8th meeting.

I made a mental note to find a copy of the Building Bye-laws.

Jones's Report states that Conners stated that there was nothing in the Building Bye-laws at the time the houses were built to prevent the use of terralux. Firstly the Building Bye-laws were out of date when Carlisle Park was built and as I was to find out later, the whole loadbearing structures of the four houses in this block were so seriously substandard that they did not even comply with these old Bye-laws which were made in 1935.

Secondly, like Alfie Jameson, Down District Council's Chief Building Control Officer omitted to tell me that it was not the old Building Bye-laws that were in force at the time Carlisle Park was built but the more recent and more stringent Housing (Owner Occupation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1956.

I was not to find this out until Dr. Ian Paisley MP brought the matter up in Parliament over three years later. Contrary to what is contained in Mr. Jones's Report of the meeting of December 8th 1977, Mr. Jones did not read out the three items a, b, and c. The Coal Advisory Report however, meant that the rendering should take place behind Joyce's fireplace from within Joyce's house, ie, on Joyce's side of the party wall immediately behind Joyce's grate and boiler. This rendering could not possibly be done from inside No. 56, but Jones had to interpret this in the way he did because Joyce had no intention of letting Jones or anyone else into his house unless he was forced to and he knew by now that the Council were not going to force him to do anything especially after Jones and Sloan had visited him. Jones never mentioned the first recommendation since the only way the terralux can be filled with concrete is to fill them sitting with their open ends upwards and this would have to be done before the terralux blocks were built into the walls. Jones never mentioned the further core and smoke test because he knew he would not want to make any further tests anyway.

Jones's Report of the December 8th meeting was to be officially exposed for what it was by Jones himself with the help of Dr. Paisley and by the unwitting Administrative Officer who told Dr. Paisley the truth of the matter, at a later date. I obtained a copy of the Building Bye-laws from my local library and began the long job of studying page after page of building rules. I wrote to Dr. Paisley MP and told him that my home did not comply with many of the Building Bye-laws.