Two civic flags at Thurrock Council Civic Offices, Grays

What was proposed

The application sought consent for two non-illuminated flags on existing eight-metre flagpoles, displayed periodically for civic and commemorative events.

“The application seeks advertisement consent for the display of two non- illuminated flags on existing flagpoles located within the forecourt of the Civic Offices, New Road, Grays. The flags proposed are the "Remembering Srebrenica" flag and the "Progress Pride" flag, each to be flown at a height of 8 metres on poles positioned no more than 6 metres from the front elevation of the building.”

“The flags will be flown from poles situated no more than 6 metres from the front elevation of the Civic Offices. The proposed flags are of a non- commercial nature and are to be displayed periodically to mark specific civic and commemorative events.”

Officer report

The site

The flagpoles stand in the Civic Offices forecourt, about six metres from the building, in a prominent mixed civic, commercial and pedestrian area.

“The application site comprises the forecourt area of the Civic Offices, located on the northern side of New Road, Grays. The site occupies a prominent position between High Street and Derby Road and forms part of the wider civic and administrative complex serving the borough.”

“The Civic Offices is a large, modern public building set back from the highway, with a hard-surfaced forecourt area where the existing flagpoles are positioned. The flagpoles are located approximately 6 metres from the principal elevation of the building and are currently used for the display of flags associated with civic functions and events.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

Earlier permissions covered the civic offices, changes to office use, refurbishment and extension, and a new entrance doorway.

“Reference Proposal Decision 89/00866/FUL Development of new five storey civic offices Approved 96/00362/TBC Change of use of part of second floor from local government use to use for offices other than local government Approved 19/00617/FUL Demolition of existing buildings and external wall on the corner of High Street and New Road and refurbishment and extension of Council offices comprising a 3 storey building with raised parapet to the west of existing building (CO2),…”

“Class B1 (a) office space on the ground floor as a registry office and 2,163 sq m of Sui Generis floor space on part of the ground floor providing new public service points, meeting rooms and an ancillary cafe and on the upper floors providing a Council Chamber, Committee Rooms and Members Services, together with cycle parking, roof plant and plant enclosure, hard and soft landscaping, seating areas and benches, infrastructure and associated works.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the flags were modest, temporary and suitably positioned, with no harm to visual amenity, public safety or highways.

“The proposed flags are modest in scale, non-illuminated, and would be displayed from established flagpoles within a civic setting. The flags are temporary in nature and intended to mark specific commemorative and civic events.”

“One objection has been received from a local resident, raising concerns regarding the appropriateness of the flags being displayed on a government building, the lack of public consultation, and the retrospective nature of the application. While these views are acknowledged, the content or symbolism of the flags is not a matter for consideration under the planning merits of the proposal.”

Officer report

Consultees and public comments

The Highway Authority raised no objection, while one resident objected to the flags, limited consultation and the application being retrospective.

“This application has been advertised by way of individual neighbour notification letters and a site notice displayed nearby. A letter of representation has been received with the following comments:”

“- Flags are considered out of character for a government building. - Only national or county flags should be flown. - Objection to lack of consultation and retrospective nature of the application. - Concern that the proposal does not reflect wider community views or priorities.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planner presented the application, and Councillor Cherry spoke against approving the flags.

Members’ debate

Members asked why consent was needed now and heard that the flags were advertisements, while national flags would remain and the displays would be seasonal.

“Members queried why this was happening now when flags had previously been hung in front of the building. It was explained the flags in question were considered as advertisement and therefore required planning consent to be flown.”

“During the debate it was confirmed that the national flags would remain and the suggested flags would be for a particular time of the year.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Eight councillors voted for the recommendation, one voted against it and none abstained.

“Recommendation: That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to grant permission for the development…”

“For (8): Councillors, Fletcher, Sisterson, Green, Jones, Kelly, J Maney, Liddiard, Panjala Against (1): Councillor Cherry Abstain (0):”

Minutes