* Clerk’s note – The Committee agreed to
vary the order of the agenda in order to take the item of renaming
of Black Boy Lane first, followed by the External Auditors update.
The minutes reflect the order in which items were considered at the
meeting, rather than the order on the published
agenda.*
The Committee received a report which
provided an update on the renaming of Black Boy Lane and
recommended that Corporate Committee agreed to proceed to a
statutory consultation on the renaming to La Rose Lane, following a
report to the Committee in July and the subsequent consultation
with local residents on the two possible street names which were
‘La Rose Lane’ and ‘Jocelyn Barrow
Lane’. The report was introduced
by Rob Krzyszowski, Interim Assistant Director for Planning,
Building Standards and Sustainability as set out on pages 49-84.
The Leader of the Council, Joe Ejiofor was also present for this
item.
The Leader of the Council advised the
Committee that the decision being asked of them was just to agree
to take this issue to the next stage and agree that a formal
consultation be launched on changing the name. It was suggested
that many of the concerns raised by residents and by the deputation
party would be addressed as part of this consultation and captured
in a future report to Committee, which would formally seek
authorisation for the name change. The Leader also advised the
Committee that he had been in regular contact with the family of Mr
La Rose and they were very supportive of this change. The Leader
also noted that this was an important task, as language
mattered.
The following was raised in discussion of
this item:
- The Committee commented that more work needed to be done around
engaging with residents and ensuring that they were supportive of
this change. In response, officers advised that the Council had
made a conscious decision to undertake a consultation at an early
stage and to consult on two possible names. Under the legislation,
the Council could have just picked a name and gone straight to the
statutory consultation process. However, it was felt important to
offer residents a choice and to seek to engage them at an early
stage.
- The Committee raised concerns with the email circulated to all
councillors received from the Padmore Institute, which was
responsible for protecting Mr La Rose’s legacy and who had
voiced various concerns and expressed opposition to the proposed
change of street name. The Committee
sought assurance around why the family and the institute had not
been consulted with at the start of this process. The Committee
also requested clarification as to why other names had not been
considered.
- The Committee noted with concern that the estimation of costs
from residents compared to what was set out in the report seemed to
vary widely. The Committee voiced their disappointment that the report did not include a full costing per
person of what the change in street name would cost. In response,
officers advised that Section 8 of the report set out that the
Council had put forward an estimated cost of £300 per
household. Further costings would be included in the subsequent
report to the Committee, when the Committee would be asked to make
a final decision.
- Members of the Committee reiterated the need for a proper
consultation process to be undertaken with local residents and
commented that, in the light of the problems caused by the pandemic
crisis and the intervention of the Christmas/New Year recess, they
would support delaying the process until this had been carried
out.
- In response to a question, officers advised that letters were
sent to everyone on the street and that a second follow-up letter
was sent out to everyone, following concerns that some residents
may have not received the first letter. The Council also extended
the consultation window by two weeks to allow more responses to be
received.
- In response to a question around what percentage of responses in
the affirmative would be required to secure a name change, officers
advised that there was no set threshold and that, ultimately, it
would be a decision for Corporate Committee to take.
- The Committee enquired whether the Council could offer
administrative support to residents to assist them in the process
of getting various documents changed. The Committee were advised
that there would be a dedicated resource in place to support
residents on this.
- The Committee enquired whether there was some scope to means
test the cost of changing addresses to different households, rather
than having a flat rate. A Committee Member reiterated the need for
the full costs to be set out before a final decision could be
taken. In response, officers advised that no final decision had
been taken and that the statutory consultation would seek views
around the costs involved and how the Council could best mitigate
those costs.
- The Leader set out that, contrary to what had been stated
earlier in the meeting, both the family of Mr La Rose and the
Padmore Institute were supportive of changing the name to La Rose
Lane. The Leader advised that he had received six letters from the
family, which were all supportive of the proposal and he had also
spoken to three members of the Padmore Institute board, who were
also supportive of it.
- The Leader agreed that he would provide the Committee with
copies of these letters as part of the final decision stage of the
process. The Committee commented that they would have liked to see
the letters included in the current agenda pack, in order to
facilitate them taking a decision to go out to statutory
consultation.
- The Chair made reference to an earlier consultation event on the
subject, where residents and local businesses raised issues about
local traffic management and the physical condition of the street
and commented that the council should avoid what has happened in
some other examples where authorities wanted to honour certain
individuals by naming streets, buildings or estates after them, but
neglecting them and allowing them to be run down to the point where
the initiative became almost an insult rather than an honour. He
suggested that, if the proposal proceeds to the next phase,
consideration of measures to address traffic management, street
cleaning and physical maintenance problems should form part of the
proposed consultation and planning.
- The Chair summarised the key points coming out of the
discussion, i.e. that there was general agreement that
·
The general principle of renaming streets
in appropriate cases, for reasons like the ones described in the
report, was broadly supported
·
The specific person proposed (i.e. John
LaRose) was an appropriate person to be
honoured in this way, whether here or elsewhere
·
There were concerns about the apparent
objections by Mr Larose’s family and the Padmore Institute,
which could be allayed by the assurances provided by the Leader and
his public commitment to circulate the relevant
correspondence
·
There were concerns about various
shortcomings identified in the initial “voluntary”
consultation round, that should be addressed in any further work on
the proposal
·
There were specific concerns about the
lack of a clear picture on the total costs, the appropriateness of
relying only on a flat-rate voluntary payment (as opposed to a
case-by-case means tested approach), and the potential need to
provide adequate administrative support to affected individuals
encountering complex bureaucratic issues
·
There were concerns that the pandemic
crisis and the Festive season recess may affect the achievement of
a full and effective consultation, and that the process should
probably be delayed, to allow enough time to do it
properly.
- The Committee agreed to proceed to statutory consultation about
the name change, with a rider that if the proposals were to come
back to the committee for final decision, further assurances must
be provided on the following concerns raised by
members:
·
A full and proper consultation be
undertaken and the views of all the residents sought.
·
That a full costing be provided on the
cost of the name change to affected residents.
·
Consideration be given to slowing down
the process to allow for consultation to take place and to bring
the local community on board with the decision.
·
Consideration be given to the fact that
starting the consultation process after the New Year would not
unduly impact the delivery timescales and would afford officers
more time to make the consultation process as comprehensive as
possible.
·
Definitive assurances needed that
renaming Black Boy Lane into LaRose
Lane would be supported by his family and legacy trust
·
Assurances needed that the issues raised
around the most appropriate method of voluntary payments and
adequate provision of administrative support to affected residents
have been fully addressed.
RESOLVED
That Corporate Committee:
- Considered the feedback from the Consultation #1 (Informal) on
possible street names and to approve ‘La Rose Lane’ as
the preferred choice;
- Agreed that the Council undertake a Consultation #2 (Statutory)
on the proposal to rename Black Boy Lane to ‘La Rose
Lane’ by posting or giving ‘notice of intention’
in accordance with Part II Section 6 of the London Buildings Acts
(Amendment) 1939; and
- Agreed that outcome of the Consultation #2 (Statutory) including
any objections, and the proposed approach to voluntary payments and
support, be reported back to the Committee for consideration and
for a final decision on the proposal.