The Resources and Fire & Rescue Overview and Scrutiny Committee met to discuss a new flag policy and a compulsory purchase order (CPO) for the Wheat Street/Leicester Road area in Nuneaton. Councillors voted against a proposal to send the flag policy back to the cabinet for further discussion, and also voted against a proposal to publish the reasons behind decisions on whether or not to allow a flag to be flown. The committee agreed to hold a future meeting to examine the Wheat Street/Leicester Road CPO in greater detail.

Flag Policy

The committee voted against a proposal to send the new flag policy back to the cabinet for further discussion. The policy concerns which flags can be flown at Shire Hall, and had been called in by councillors from opposition parties.

Councillor Richard Dickson said that the Liberal Democrat group had called in the policy for three reasons:

• It was a new policy that had not had input from all parties.
• The policy could be abused, with decisions being taken along party political lines.
• The policy did not require the Chair of the Council to give a reason as to why they had chosen to accept or reject a request for a particular flag to be flown.

Councillor Judy Falp said that as this was a new policy, it should have been discussed at Full Council first, and that a senior officer had been publicly disparaged when the topic had been discussed previously. She also stated her belief the Chair of the Council would be predetermined in their decision making by their party's national policy, and only certain flags would be flown.

Councillor Nicki Scott said the policy would politicise the post of Chair, and that decisions on which flags should be flown should be made by an independent person, or by a cross-party group.

Councillor Sarah Feeney, Leader of the Labour Group, said flags could be used as a positive, and celebrate cultural significance and identity of marginalised groups. She reminded members that the Ukrainian flag had been flown from Shire Hall and the council had recently reaffirmed its support for the citizens of Ukraine. She also stated her belief the policy was more weighted towards requests to fly flags being refused than accepted, and that there was a possibility of a flag being flown that did not align with the views of the council as an organisation.

Councillor Sam Jones stated his belief the flag policy was aimed more at eliminating support for the LGBTQ+ community, and noted concerns that had been raised by the relevant staff networks. He also noted the previous Leader had posted on his Facebook page to express a desire to replace the rainbow crossing in Leamington with one that depicted the George cross.

Councillor Mark Stevens stated that the previous decision maker on flag flying had been the Chief Executive Officer, who was independent of the elected members.

Councillor Michael Bannister, Portfolio Holder for Customer and Localities, said no flag policy had existed previously and this formally set out the three flags that would be flown on the flagpoles at Shire Hall: the Union Flag, Cross of St George, and the Warwickshire flag. He said there were many groups that would like to have a flag flown, and it would be unfair to give priority to one group over another, adding that the policy would not have any impact on the council's duties under the Equalities Act.

Councillor George Finch, Leader of the Council, said consideration had been given to having a group that would consider applications, but this had been rejected in favour of having a policy that meant the Chair of the Council would be solely responsible for making decisions.

Councillor John Waine stated the three flags were apolitical and were not discriminatory.

Councillor Keith Kondakor proposed a motion that decisions on which flags could be flown should be made by a group containing the Chair of the Council and two members of the next two largest parties that made up the council. The motion was seconded by Councillor Richard Dickson. Councillor Richard Dickson proposed a motion that the reasons behind a decision on whether or not to allow a flag to be flown should be published. The motion was seconded by Councillor Keith Kondakor.

Both motions were initially considered together but were rejected. The motions were then considered separately, with a named vote carried out on each motion. A majority of members rejected both motions, so they fell.

As a result, the committee took no action on the flag policy.

Public Speaking

Prior to the discussion on the flag policy, Councillor Andy Crump read a statement from a resident who was unable to attend the meeting. The resident explained they used a mobility scooter and had mental health challenges, and had relatives who had served in the armed forces, including during the Second World War.

The resident stated their belief the Disability Pride Flag was not a political statement and was a symbol of visibility, dignity, and pride for millions of disabled people. They said each colour on the flag represented a different aspect of the disabled experience, and the lightning bolt reflected the strength and creativity disabled people showed. They stated they often found public spaces to be poorly designed and inaccessible for disabled people. The resident stated their belief that not flying the Disability Pride Flag sent a message that the experiences of disabled people were not worthy of recognition, and stated their belief that the policy was discriminatory and not neutral. They said inclusion was a reflection of the values that made communities strong: fairness, representation, and respect for all.

Wheat Street/Leicester Road Compulsory Purchase Order

The committee agreed to hold a future meeting to examine the Wheat Street/Leicester Road CPO in greater detail, and to take no action on the call-in at this time.

Councillor Keith Kondakor said he had concerns over the Wheat Street section of the development, which was why he had called in the cabinet decision to approve the overall scheme. He accepted the redevelopment around the railway station needed to be done, but noted the scheme had been agreed five years ago and questioned if it still represented good value for money. He said there needed to be greater clarity on the bus routes that would use the junctions and how the bus station fitted in with the overall scheme. He also raised concerns over the access to the existing NCP car park.

Councillor Jennifer Warren, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Planning, said she had discussed the two parts of the scheme with the relevant officers, adding that the Leicester Road gyratory scheme appeared to be straightforward, and officers were present to answer any questions members may have.

Dave Ayton-Hill, Director of Economy and Place, said the scheme was designed so the two projects would work together in phases. The Wheat Street section would be done first, which would enable the gyratory work to start. He said this would facilitate creating better bus routes and improve existing traffic flow.

Councillor Keith Kondakor said it would be better if the bus bridge was included as part of the scheme. Margaret Smith, Service Manager, Transport Planning, said there was no funding for the bus bridge currently, but it would be possible to reconfigure the bus station to include a bridge if funding did become available.

Responding to a question from Councillor Andy Crump, Dave Ayton-Hill said the scheme was fully funded through capital investment fund and Section 106 money¹. Councillor Keith Kondakor noted the Borough Council had withdrawn its funding for the Wheat Street scheme and the bus station as it was not a priority. Margaret Smith said the bus station did not have the same level of priority as the rest of the project, and Dave Ayton-Hill added that the Borough Council still considered the Wheat Street and gyratory developments as priority schemes. He said there had been funding challenges; however the Transforming Nuneaton highways scheme was regarded as a priority by both the county and the borough councils, and these schemes were a vital component of making the Transforming Nuneaton plans work. Responding to a question from Councillor Andy Crump, Dave Ayton-Hill said the project had been selected as part of a wider programme of highways improvements.

Councillor Richard Dickson asked for clarification on the start dates of construction work that were listed in the report, and asked if a public enquiry would still be ongoing when work was due to start. Dave Ayton-Hill said the gyratory scheme was going through the planning process, where there would be the possibility for public input. Planning permission was still required to demolish a building as part of the gyratory works, but no further planning permissions were required for the Wheat Street section of the project. There would be a 21-day consultation under the Traffic Regulation Orders², and there would be further processes to go through if a significant number of objections were received through this consultation.

Councillor Keith Kondakor suggested the topic should be examined in greater detail at a specially convened meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, focusing particularly on the design issues raised in the consideration of the call-in. He proposed a motion to hold an additional meeting and for the committee to not to take any action on the call-in, which was seconded by Councillor Andy Crump and unanimously agreed by members.