by Graham Tait.
When residents challenge decisions made by their local council, they expect those concerns to be examined fairly and independently.
But what happens when the council being challenged is also the body responsible for judging the complaint?
Over the past year I have experienced the formal complaints process of Beverley Town Council in relation to the purchase of the St John Ambulance building on Morton Lane.
What followed raises important questions about transparency, democratic accountability, and whether residents can realistically expect independent scrutiny when they raise concerns about how their council operates.
The original complaint concerned the way the Morton Lane building was purchased and the lack of any meaningful due diligence in the process.
It did not challenge the principle of providing Beverley with a town hall. Instead, it focused on the governance surrounding the proposal, particularly the transparency of the decision-making process and the level of scrutiny being applied to a project involving public funds and public assets.
Local councils hold public resources in trust for the communities they represent. For that reason, the processes by which decisions are made must be not only lawful but clearly transparent and open to challenge when residents have legitimate concerns.
The first difficulty arose from the structure of the complaints process itself.
Rather than referring the matter to any form of independent panel or external oversight, the complaint was handled entirely internally by the council.
In effect, the institution whose conduct was being questioned was also responsible for determining whether the complaint had merit.
Local councils hold public resources in trust for the communities they represent. For that reason, the processes by which decisions are made must be not only lawful but clearly transparent and open to challenge when residents have legitimate concerns.
This creates an obvious democratic problem.
Internal review procedures can have value, but they work best when supported by mechanisms that allow for independent scrutiny where governance or transparency is being questioned.
Without that safeguard, a council is placed in the position of acting simultaneously as investigator, judge and final arbiter of its own conduct.
The complaint was rejected.
Following that decision, a formal appeal was submitted setting out the concerns in greater detail.
The appeal raised a number of issues, including the limited transparency surrounding key decisions connected to the project, the absence of independent oversight within the complaints process and the democratic implications of decision-making within a council composed entirely of members from a single political party.
Political dominance within local authorities is not uncommon. However, where it exists the need for strong procedural safeguards becomes even more important. Without them, the checks and balances that normally underpin democratic institutions can begin to weaken.
The appeal also questioned whether a complaints process could genuinely be regarded as impartial when those reviewing the complaint were the same people who made the decision in the first place or colleagues of those whose decisions were under scrutiny.
Perhaps the most striking feature of the process was the length of time taken to consider the appeal.
Residents might reasonably expect that concerns about governance and transparency would be addressed promptly. Instead, the appeal remained unresolved for several months before it was eventually heard.
During that time the issues raised in the complaint remained unanswered, and requests for independent oversight continued to be declined.
When the appeal was finally considered, the structure of the process had not changed.
The matter was again reviewed internally by the council itself, and once again no external scrutiny was permitted.
The appeal was ultimately rejected.
In recent years increasing attention has been paid nationally to governance standards in local authorities and parish councils. Internal audit processes, external audit oversight and sector guidance all emphasise the importance of transparency, documented decision-making and clear mechanisms for accountability.
These safeguards exist not simply as administrative requirements but as protections for both councils and the communities they serve. When questions arise about governance, the availability of independent scrutiny can help ensure that public confidence in the process is maintained.
The lesson from the Morton Lane complaint is not about one project or one resident’s grievance. It is about whether the mechanisms that exist to hold local authorities accountable are capable of doing the job they were designed for.
When a council investigates its own conduct, delays scrutiny for months, and refuses any form of independent oversight, it risks undermining public confidence in the very democratic processes it is meant to uphold.
Beverley’s residents are entitled to ask a simple question: if concerns about governance cannot be examined independently, who exactly holds the council to account?
The author is a local resident who submitted a formal complaint to Beverley Town Council regarding governance issues connected to the Morton Lane town hall project.
Editor’s note.
Before publication, Beverley Review approached Beverley Town Council for comment on the concerns raised in this article.
In response, the council said Mr Tait’s original complaint, submitted in September 2025, was referred under its Scheme of Delegation to the Personnel Committee, which convened a Complaints Panel. The council said the panel considered the complaint in December 2025 and concluded that the governance issues raised had already been identified by the council’s internal and external auditors.
According to the council, the Internal Auditor recommended revisions to policies and procedures, which have since been implemented and continue to be refined. The council also said the External Auditor was satisfied with its response regarding the purchase process and took no further action. (However Beverley Review where unable at present to find more details on the recommendations via the councils website)
The council said Mr Tait then exercised his right of appeal. That appeal was considered by Full Council on 2 March 2026, which resolved that the original complaint procedure had been fair, had followed procedure and that the original decision should be upheld.
The council’s response makes clear that it believes the complaint was dealt with properly and that lessons have been learned since the original decision to purchase the building.
The council response does not address the central issue raised in this opinion piece: whether a complaint about the council’s own conduct can be regarded as independently scrutinised when it is considered first by a council panel and then by Full Council itself.
Should councillors hear complaints about council decisions that they themselves may have been part of making as Mr Tait describes above? And if so, what does that mean for local democracy?
That question sits at the heart of Mr Tait’s argument, which is not simply about the Morton Lane building, but about transparency, governance and democratic accountability in local public life.
Download Beverley Town Council’s statement in full.
Local Government Ombusman.
In trying to answer that questions, Beverley Review has also spoken to the Local Government Ombusman and discovered their work specifically excludes local town and parish councils.
So it seems in England, if, as is the case here, a town or Parish council is shown to follow the procedure according to the LGA, there is generally no further independent ombudsman route for complaints about a town or parish council as a corporate body.
Unless a complaint is a standards complaint against and individual councillor, an audit issue, or a legal challenge by judicial review, residents may be left with only the council’s own internal process and, ultimately, the ballot box.
Paul Nickerson
Editor, Beverley Review
What to submit an article?
We very much welcome local views and voices on anything community, cultural or local democracy related. We’re a community site, so non-commercial with no advertising or sponsorships. Our aim is to provide a service for the local community of this great town and the surrounding area.
Please email you ideas to editorial@beverleyreview.co.uk