Chris Penberthy (Cabinet Member for Housing, Cooperative Development, and Communities), Caroline Marr (Senior Policy Advisor) and Glenda Favor-Ankersen (Head of Elections and Democratic Services) introduced the Commemorations and Celebrations Policy and discussed:

 

a)     Plymouth City Council had a long?established civic tradition of marking special and significant days each year through civic events, lighting Council?owned buildings and flying flags, as well as opening books of condolence and organising moments of silence;

 

b)    The Council’s existing flags protocol dated back to 2016, had never been a published document and largely repeated central Government guidance, providing no clear, transparent process for officers to follow when requests were made, and no indication for members of the public about how, where or when to make requests;

 

c)     In recent years, the Council had experienced an increase in ad?hoc requests from residents and communities to light buildings or fly a flag in connection with particular illnesses, conditions, or traumatic experiences, often made at very short notice, which was disruptive and inconsistent;

 

d)    The current informal position meant that requests were often made directly to Cabinet Members on the basis of personal acquaintance. The intention of the new Policy was to democratise the process so that residents could submit requests via a clear public route rather than through personal contacts;

 

e)     The Council owned a significant number of flagpoles across its corporate estate, sitting under different service areas, budgets, and management arrangements. The draft Policy was the first of two papers intended to support wider asset management work by providing consistency in how flagpoles were used, regardless of which part of the Council managed them;

 

f)      The Policy was built on two core principles:

 

                        i.         Political neutrality – the Council, as a corporate body, would not use flags or lighting to express support for particular political parties or political causes;

 

                       ii.         Inclusivity and fostering community cohesion – ensuring that commemorations and celebrations supported, rather than undermined, relationships between communities in the city;

 

g)     The Policy summarised key points from Government guidance and relevant planning legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2007, and clearly set out which flags were on the Government’s ‘pre?approved’ list so that both officers and the public understood the planning constraints;

 

h)    The draft Policy established locally agreed criteria for requests to:

 

                     i.         fly a guest flag;

 

                   ii.         light a Council?owned building (predominantly Smeaton’s Tower at this stage);

 

                  iii.          hold a civic moment of silence;

 

                  iv.         open a book of condolence;

 

i)      The Policy explicitly recognised “exceptional circumstances” in which the Council might reasonably wish to act at shorter notice, for example, to celebrate Plymouth Argyle reaching a significant stage in a cup competition, or to mark the achievements of Olympians. Discretion was reserved for flag?flying and lighting outside normal notice periods, so that “special” moments that mattered to the city could still be marked appropriately;

 

j)      The policy was designed to ensure a clear, accessible and transparent process (including an online request route) for members of the public to request the flying of guest flags, particularly outside the Guildhall, and the lighting of Smeaton’s Tower, as the current arrangements were not open or widely understood;

 

k)     Pre-decision scrutiny was being undertaken prior to Cabinet’s consideration  to enable the draft to be discussed in public, and to enable feedback from Members and the wider community to be reflected in the final version.

 

In response to questions, the Panel discussed:

 

l)      The absence of the flag of St Andrew from the list of Government?approved flags in the draft documentation, and the need to confirm whether this was an omission in the draft or reflected the current Government list;

 

m)   Confirmation that the Equalities Calendar was accessible under the equalities section of the Council’s website, and that whilst the Council often marked those days in a variety of ways, inclusion of events on the calendar did not guarantee that a building would be lit or a flag flown, as each request would still need to be considered against the Policy’s criteria;

 

n)    Clarification that an annex to the report set out a detailed list of all flagpoles owned by the Council, specifying which flags would ordinarily be flown at which locations, and on which occasions, so that practice was consistent and easy to understand;

 

o)    Perceptions among some residents that they might no longer be allowed to fly a flag “in their back garden”. Reassurance was provided that:

 

                     i.         the Policy conferred no additional powers, controls, resources or enforcement capability on the Council in respect of flags flown by residents or businesses on their own premises;

 

                   ii.         people remained free to fly flags on their property, provided they complied with existing planning rules and national guidance, which had not changed;

 

p)    Planning records, which indicated that 111 planning applications had been received incorporating the word “flag”, predominantly related to applications for flags on business premises or temporary flags for events;

 

q)    The importance of distinguishing between:

 

                     i.         the Council’s internal process for considering requests to use Council?owned assets (buildings, flagpoles and civic functions);

 

                   ii.         the wholly separate national planning regime that applied to flags and advertisements on private land and buildings;

 

r)     Suggestions from Members that the section of the Policy dealing with residents’ “liberty to fly flags” should be strengthened, providing clear signposting so that householders wishing to fly their national flag on a domestic flagpole could easily find out how to do so safely, legally and considerately, without inadvertently breaching planning rules or causing neighbour disputes;

 

s)     Assurance from officers that, in light of public comments and this discussion, the final Policy and associated materials would:

 

                         i.         clearly state that planning advice would not be provided within the Policy itself;

 

                       ii.         include prominent links, on both the introductory webpage and the online request form, to the national Planning Portal and to the Council’s own planning guidance, so that residents seeking to fly flags on their own property could access the appropriate technical advice;

 

t)     The complexity of planning law around flags, including detailed exemptions and the consequent risk of the Council inadvertently giving incorrect advice if it tried to paraphrase planning regulations within the Policy;

 

u)    Potential tensions between the Policy’s principles of ensuring that all communities felt represented and respected, and the principle of avoiding commemorations that could be seen as exclusive or inflammatory. It was explained that the Policy would enable officers the time and framework to consider the broader impact of a proposed commemoration and to avoid rushed or reactive decisions that might unintentionally cause harm, by:

 

                         i.         consulting relevant community groups;

 

                       ii.         engaging with the Council’s own community safety and equalities teams;

 

                      iii.         liaising, where appropriate, with partners such as the police;

v)     Clarification that the Council could, and did take enforcement action against advertising and signage (such as over?sized billboards) which breached planning rules, and that the Policy would reaffirm the Council’s right to take action where appropriate, including in respect of flags or markings placed on Council?owned assets without consent;

 

w)   Confirmation that decisions about flags on street lighting columns sat under a different Cabinet portfolio (Highways) and were outside the scope of this Policy, which focused on civic and corporate estate assets;

 

x)    Suggestions that, where feasible, the Council should explore coordinating lighting arrangements for Smeaton’s Tower with the Tamar Bridge, given historic requests for both landmarks to be lit in the same colours for particular causes or celebrations;

 

y)     Acknowledgement that online feedback and social media comments about the draft Policy had been mixed, with some remarks being inflammatory but others raising helpful points of clarification. These comments would be reviewed alongside the scrutiny feedback when refining the final draft;

 

z)     Recognition across the Panel that many residents’ primary association with the Policy would, in practice, be the lighting of Smeaton’s Tower, given its popularity and visibility, and that the proposed open and transparent process for considering lighting requests would therefore be particularly important.

 

Action: Officers to verify whether the flag of St Andrew is correctly included on the Government’s list of flags that may be flown without express consent, and to amend the draft Policy and appendices as necessary to ensure accuracy;

 

Action: Officers to clarify, within the final Policy and supporting documents, the relationship between the Council’s Equalities Calendar and the Commemorations and Celebrations Policy, making clear that inclusion on the Equalities Calendar does not in itself guarantee that a building will be lit or a flag flown, but that such days may be considered against the Policy’s criteria;

 

Action: Officers to liaise with the Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry undertaking to explore opportunities to coordinate lighting requests for Smeaton’s Tower and the Tamar Bridge where appropriate, and to reflect any operational limitations or differences in public?facing information;

 

Action: Officers to strengthen the clarity and accessibility of public guidance on flag?flying and lighting on private property.

 

The Panel agreed:

 

1. To review and provide feedback on the draft Policy.