Belfast Council to review controversial dual language street signs policy

Belfast Council is to review its controversial dual language street signs policy.

Elected representatives this week agreed upon the parameters of a review, and to a variety of proposals, including one by Sinn Féin, that the Irish Language and Ulster Scots Commissioners be involved in the process.

The review will look at many aspects of the policy, including a proposal by Sinn Féin that results should be calculated as a percentage of only those that have returned a survey, rather than all occupiers of the street. The council will receive a legal opinion on this.

The review will also look at the “discretionary status” of the council’s decision-making on streets which do not meet the fifteen percent threshold at survey stage. There have been a number of decisions to allow streets dual language signage despite them not meeting the threshold.

Data collection as part of the survey process will also be looked at, including use of the electoral register, and how to deal with duplicate applications for streets that fail to meet the approval threshold at street survey.

Council officers will lead the review, which will include the development of “a robust consultation and engagement framework to identify the stakeholders whose views should be sought to determine whether any policy changes may be required.”

In 2022 councillors agreed a new policy on dual language street signs would finally be implemented - 18 months after the policy was originally given the go-ahead in the chamber. Sinn Féin, Alliance, the SDLP, the Green Party, and the People Before Profit Party all supported the new street sign policy, while the three unionist parties in the chamber, the DUP, UUP and PUP, were against it.

The current policy means at least one resident of any Belfast street, or a councillor, is all that is required to trigger a consultation on a second nameplate.

If 15 percent or more of all occupants surveyed in a street want to have a dual language sign in the language requested, this will be sufficient to erect the sign. Non-responses will no longer be counted as “against” votes, and there will be an equality assessment for each application.

Before that, the policy required 33.3 percent of the eligible electorate in any Belfast street to sign a petition to begin the process, and 66.6 percent to agree to the new dual language sign on the street. All the streets that have received dual language signage to date have featured the English and Irish languages.

The policy has drawn controversy, with some unionist politicians saying the 15 percent threshold is too low, despite it being common practice for minority languages across the world. Others say that nationalist parties have “changed the goalposts” by pushing for Irish language street signs in streets which did not meet the 15 percent threshold.

Irish-language advocates view the signs as a long-overdue right and a celebration of identity, while some unionist politicians argue they are being used to mark territory and stoke division. Some argue the positive integration aspects of the policy have been underplayed.

Last month, bitter words were exchanged at City Hall over the council’s “long roads” element to the policy, which covers decisions on whether streets should receive dual language signage along their full lengths, or at sections where it would be deemed “appropriate.”

At the full council meeting for July, Green Party votes pushed through a decision to erect Irish and English dual language street signs at unionist parts of two North Belfast roads. A committee decision to place Irish/English street signs only at nationalist parts of Donegall Park Avenue and Oldpark Road was reversed, as the Green Party became kingmakers in the full chamber. Both streets passed the required 15 percent occupier threshold for dual language signage to be erected.

A Sinn Féin proposal for both streets to receive signage along their full lengths received 31 votes in favour from Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Green Party and People Before Profit, to 25 votes against, from the DUP, Alliance, the UUP and TUV.

A report for the council’s People and Communities Committee, held on August 11, states the review will “seek to fulfil the commitment made on implementation of the policy to review the impact of the policy.” It will “address requests from and issues raised by members in relation to various aspects of the policy and review of the issues identified by officers who are administering the policy in practice.”

The council says the process will include a “consultant-led review” and will include “quantitative data relating to the number of applications made, including the breakdown of support by community background at relevant stages of the application process.” The review will have data involving comments and feedback received on applications, data from correspondence and media coverage, feedback from staff involved in the application process, and an analysis of the complaints register.

The current policy states that “where fifteen percent or more of the occupiers of that street have indicated that they are in favour of the erection of a second language street sign, then such a sign may be erected”. Officers currently compile all results as a percentage of all occupiers on a street.

The council states: “This approach has been challenged in committee and council meetings, where it has been suggested that results should be calculated as percentage of only those that have returned a survey rather than all occupiers of the street. A legal opinion has been requested in relation to this matter. Whilst street surveys will continue, processing of survey results and subsequent reporting to the committee has been put on hold awaiting this legal opinion being provided.”

If the minimum threshold of fifteen percent is not met at street survey, the current policy states the applicant will be given two weeks to advise the council of any special circumstances. If there are none, then the application is closed.

Since May 2026 these have been included within the monthly dual language street sign report for noting, with the first report including all applications that had failed. Since then, meetings have seen the residual discretion clause used to reconsider the applications and approve them. This has been queried by unionist councillors, and will be considered by the review.

The council report adds: “There are a number of streets that have failed to meet the threshold for approval at street survey. There has been no consensus on how subsequent applications in the same or a different language for streets that have failed to meet the 15 percent threshold in survey should be dealt with. It is proposed that this matter should be considered as part of the review.”

At the People and Communities Committee meeting on Tuesday, Sinn Féin Councillor Ciaran Beattie said any review should be deferred until there was involvement from Pól Deeds, the Irish Language Commissioner, and Lee Reynolds, the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition. He said: “Their role is to continue to advise organisations like this in best practice. If we go out to review without engaging those commissioners, then we are not doing this in its totality, and it potentially leaves ourselves open.” The committee agreed to bring in both commissioners for advice before the review begins.

The committee also agreed to DUP proposals to look at developer’s requests to have streets with dual language signage, which Councillor Sarah Bunting said “could potentially mark out areas for residents.” The committee further agreed to a request by Green Party Councillor Anthony Flynn for more information on applications for dual language signage not in Irish, to show “that they also get a fair crack of the whip.”

A proposal by Alliance Councillor Hedley Abernethy for more information on measurement of the good relations aspect of the policy was also accepted. He said: “To pretend there is no good relations impact is just disingenuous, and is very naive.”

SDLP Councillor Séamas de Faoite said: “We haven’t had enough of an emphasis on saying that this is an opportunity for further cultural understanding and integration.” He said “there wasn’t enough work” in the council to support the integration aspect, and asked for this to be explored in the review.