My Address To Down District Council.

I spent many hours in preparation for my big night. After much thought I decided to say what is to follow and any references I would make would be from the actual letters or papers referred to. So I ended up with my basic address and quite a number of sheets all put in their proper order. Along with my papers I carried a section of terralux block and a solid brick.
As usual Gemma was at my side as I set off for 24 Strangford Road on November 6th 1978. Gemma and I sat at the back of the Council Chamber until I was called on to speak, then with my nerves quite well controlled I began;

"Mr. Chairman, Madam, Gentlemen, My wife and I are most grateful for having been afforded this opportunity of meeting you, even though the nature of our business is somewhat disagreeable.
Section 8 subsection 6 of the Commissioner for Complaints Act (1969) states, and I quote, 'No investigation under this Act shall affect the validity of any action previously taken by the body concerned in the investigation or previously taken by any Minister or government department with respect to that body or any power or duty of that body, Minister or department to take further action with respect to any matters subject to the investigation.' End of quote. In other words it would seem that this matter is not sub judice.
Eighteen months ago this Council's Chief Public Health Inspector stated in a letter to me dated April 25th 1977 from which I quote,
'I would suggest that you inform this Office when the smoke is evident and I assure you that, so far as is reasonably practical, every effort will be made by this department to verify or otherwise the complaint and all necessary action will be taken upon such verification.' End of quote. Eight days later my complaint was verified.
It was subsequently confirmed by smoke test.
It was confirmed to the extent that an officer of this Council threatened my neighbour's wife with a summons.
It was confirmed by officers of this Council in the presence of members of this Council.
It was confirmed by the Coal Advisory Service.

When a smoke test confirmed my complaint, an officer from this Council's Environmental Health Department indicated that he would be present in No. 54 Carlisle Park during the time that repairs were being carried out.
No officer was present to see what repairs if any were carried out, yet on the strength of hearsay that repairs were carried out a second smoke test took place. This test involved an interested party and proved negative. Some days later my wife phoned this headquarters and indicated that smoke was still entering No. 56 even though our fireplace was completely closed off with concrete blocks and plastered over.
This district's Chief Public Health Inspector in a letter to my wife dated June 15th1977 stated, and I quote,

'I regret that the problem has not been solved to your satisfaction. I felt sure that the nuisance had been resolved when, even under test and in your presence, no smoke had made its way into your house. It is for this reason that I must insist that your present allegation is treated as a new complaint.' End of quote.

Why then did he suggest in his four page dossier presented in this chamber on November 7th 1977 that, and I quote,
'.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',

end of quote, when this work was accepted by his department as being done six months previously? In the same dossier this District's Chief Public Health Inspector stated that, and I quote,

'.the terralux bricks placed lengthwise along the rear of the fireplace opening is not a satisfactory feature as there is no second line of defence that would be given by solid bricks.' End of quote. The fact is that there are solid clay bricks at the rear of Mr. Joyce's fireplace opening, extending to about three feet in length, and smoke never escaped through them, making a second line of defence unnecessary. The smoke does escape through the sides or jambs of the fireplace in No. 54 and then around either side of the solid bricks, up the boast breast and into the floor joist spaces, a fact borne out by the reason given for the consideration of a Statutory Notice. This is why it is impossible to effect an adequate repair from inside our home.

To date almost four thousand pounds have been spent directly or indirectly in a vain effort to secure a remedy, alternative to the recommendation contained in the report from the Coal Advisory Service, which was commissioned by the Chief Public Health Inspector, because this Council has failed to have those recommendations put into effect.
Subsequently, in a report signed by the Chief Public Health Inspector from which I quote,
'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 would be carried out in accordance with the council's Building Regulations agreement for the work to be carried out was given by Mr. Rice.' End of quote. In a letter from Mr. Sullivan to me dated February 27th 1978 I quote,

'The Commissioner is still of the opinion that the smoke problem in your house is essentially a matter between you and the builder. I have spoken to Mr. Allen, the Clerk to the Council and Mr. Jones, the chief Public Health Inspector, and understand that your neighbour has no objection to the work being carried out.' End of quote.
It would seem strange that this work has not been carried out during this past year, that is until one reads in a letter from this Council's Administrative Officer to Dr. Ian Paisley MP and I quote,

'After several inspections by the Environmental Health Department of the Council it was confirmed that smoke was entering No. 56 Carlisle Park, Ballynahinch, from the adjoining house at No. 54 and Council at their meeting on 21st November 1977 agreed:

'that the Clerk to the Council together with the 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. This meeting was held in the Council Offices on 8th December 1977 and for your information I enclose herewith copy of the report of the meeting. Since that date the contractor has been unable to obtain necessary permission to gain access to the property to remedy the defects.' End of quote.

This letter is dated April 26th,1978 two months after Mr. Sullivan in the Commissioner for Complaints Office had received contrary information from Mr. Allen and Mr. Jones. Also in an official Report signed by Jones dated April 21st 1978 he states and I quote, 'When I returned to the office I telephoned Mr. Barr of James Conlon, solicitor and asked him if he could persuade Mr. Joyce to permit Mr. Brown to remove his fireplace and seal the defects.' End of quote. The same Report states, and I quote,

'I asked Mr. Brown to explain to Mr. Joyce the work that he proposed to do and Mr. Brown stated that he did not think it necessary to mess up Joyce's house by removing the fireplace as he could abate the nuisance by plastering the wall at the back of Joyce's fireplace.
We then went into Mr. Rice's house to ask his permission to do this work but Mr. Rice refused stating that the smoke would only some out somewhere else and would insist on Joyce's fireplace being removed and the defects sealed. A discussion then took place regarding the terralux bricks in the party wall and Mr. Rice stated that the terralux bricks should be removed and replaced with solid bricks. At this stage Mr. Brown mentioned that the Building Control Officer should see the wall.' End of quote. In other words when I challenged the contractor to do what he allegedly agreed to with Mr. Conners he refused.

I must ask therefore, did the contractor really agree to the work as specified by Mr. Conners? Did Mr. Joyce really agree to this work being carried out? If the answers are yes, why has the work not been carried out? If the answers are no, why has this Council not taken steps to see that it is carried out as it is statutarily obliged to do? Is it embarrassed by the dilemma of instructing officers in one of its departments to act to have a fault repaired in a dwelling which an officer or officers in another of its departments has passed as without such fault?

The plans were passed for these dwellings because the architect specified solid walls. The Bye-laws specified solid walls. The builder knew the need for solid walls. I have paid for solid walls, but because of the use of this (here I lifted up the piece of terralux for all the Councillors to see) instead of this (here I lifted up the solid brick), 46%, 46% of the walls on either side of my home is missing, making it easy to understand why this Council advised the National House Builders Council that No. 52, No. 54 and No. 58 have the same complaint as No. 56. This fault is continuing to cause our home to be violated.

My wife and I respectfully request this Council to have this fault repaired."

Cllr. Quinn congratulated me on my address as soon as I had finished and asked me to let him see the copy of the page out of the Commissioner for Complaints Act from which I had quoted Section 8 Sub-section 6. He read it and handed it back to me.