Flags to complaints about Councillor behaviour, tie up valuable resources

Update 26th April 2024

The second complaint against the Councillor (see below) has been upheld. A secret panel has ordered that the representative be “censured”. He will also be prevented from contacting officials in a Council department.

The issue arose following an interchange of Emails about the flag-flying protocol (see below). The Councillor had been (rightly) concerned about the transparency of the process used for approving the flying of campaign banners (instead of the City flag).

It subsequently turned out that flying non-traditional flags was unlawful without planning permission.

Whether disciplinary action will be taken against members and officials who turned a blind eye to the legal requirements remains to be seen.

Earlier A York Councillor has been found guilty of berating an official.

The dispute arose over a claim about “cowboy builders”..

Now he is being asked to undertake “equalities training” following a hearing, which was held “behind closed doors” . The meeting was chaired by a Labour Councillor. The same Councillor has executive responsibility for – you guessed – “equalities”. So no chance of a balanced view from there then!

In addition the Councillor had been complaining about an unlawful campsite which has been established in a layby on the east of the City. Rather than take enforcement action  to remove the caravans- or alternatively to regularise the camp – the Council and authorities decide to turn a blind eye. They seem to work on the basis that if you never make a decision then you will never be wrong.

In the case of the campsite the local Councillor became frustrated over 4 year period with the lack of response.

Of course, the fundamental issue,. lack of good quality traveller sites in and around York, remains unresolved. Officials claim that it is bogged down by the ongoing Local Plan Public Inquiry.  In reality, the Council has failed to broker an understanding between permanent residents and the traveller community. Successive Councils have run scared of the issue. They now hope that it will simply go away.

The issue is taking up a lot of officials and Councillors time. Time is money. In this case the resources would be better directed towards improving public service standards in the City.

Further “code of conduct” standards cases are understood to be in the pipeline including one on the “flag flying protocol” (See beow) .

The standards process should be streamlined. No time should be spent on complaints tabled by Councillors or officials. Any such issues should be moderated informally.

But that won’t resolve the problems of a dysfunctional Council which is incapable of dealing transparently with problems.

There are similar issues on the other side of the City, where a residents association raised, in 2021, concerns about anti social behaviour in the neighbourhood.

Following complaints the Police did have a higher profile for a time, although this gradually declined.

Crime numbers were lower during the winter. They’re increasing again now that spring has arrived.

Residents reached an impasse with the York Council – and its agents – about 6 months ago on a way forward. A raft of proposals had been tabled.

These included providing a CCTV surveilance camera, improved security on snickets (which were used as escape routes by criminals), diversionary activities for teenagers (including the provision of a replacement Multi User Games area which had been in the pipeline for 4 years), better lighting and cutting back undergrowth to make passageways less intimidating plus a refined tenancy allocation system coupled with the strict enforcement of tenancy conditions.

 It was hoped that the nascent Safer York Partnership would take more of an interest in the suburbs and that agencies like the youth justice system would start to have more success.

A continued high police profile was also required to provide reassurance for local residents.

The only positive changes were that better use was made of social media (community messaging) to warn residents of possible issues and – no doubt in preparation for the upcoming Mayoral elections – the crime commissioner offered a limited number of free “ring” video doorbells (but neglected to pay for the license which would allow the recorded footage to be retained)

There has been little, if any, recent action by local Councillors to address escalating crime levels. Obviously, they are in no danger of offending any officials

On the topic of wasted resources, the decision by the Council to apply for planning permission to fly non traditional flags on the Mansion House is a classic case.

Since 2011 the Council has been flying an erratic collection of national flags and political banners from the mansion’s house roof. It turns out that they did so unlawfully. They were in breach of planning laws.

In theory, all the Groups present on the Council have to agree that a campaign flag can be flown. In reality, this doesn’t seem to happen and certainly not in a transparent way. One of the pipeline Councillor code breach claims, may originate from a secret decision not to fly a regimental flag on a commemorative day.

Local campaigner Gwen Swinburn has tabled an objection to the planning application. Although we don’t agree with her on all  issues, she is right on the money when she says,” The flag pole on the Mansion House should not be used as a political pawn”.

Better to go back to the old system, where the only flag permitted to be flown over the Mansion House was the City Flag. This, a version of  the St Georges Cross, was taken to encompass  all residents views in a multi-cultural City.

While it is the political left who have been trying to seize the flag pole in past years, they should beware of the precedent that they may set.

 At some point, a more right-wing administration will take its turn in power. What flag they chose to fly may spark even more controversy.