Deputations/Petitions/Presentations/Questions
To consider any requests
received in accordance with Part 4, section B, Paragraph 29 of the
Council’s Constitution.
Minutes:
The Committee
received two deputations in relation to agenda Item 10, the
Renaming of Black Boy Lane.
The first deputation
was given by Anna Taylor and Ian Jackson Reeves both residents of
Black Boy Lane. Below is a summary of the key points made as part
of the deputation:
- Concerns were raised that the discussion to date on the subject
seemed to be focused around ideology and insufficient consideration
had been given to the practical realities involved and the huge
impact that the change of name would have on local
residents.
- A number of legal and important documents would have to be
changed including pensions, passports, immigration documents, bank
accounts and mortgage statements, for example. The cost of this
would be significant and the suggested compensation figure of
£300 would not be enough for many people. The change of
address would also invalidate some insurance policies which could
have a huge financial impact on individuals.
- Particular concerns were put forward about the additional cost
on non-UK citizens and those with dual nationality who would have
to resubmit immigration and visa documents to the Home Office, many
of which would require lawyers to be present and would, as a
result, be very expensive. In addition to the cost involved, many
people were naturally wary of doing anything that may result in
questions being asked about their visa/immigration
status.
- Concerns were also put forward with the inadequacy of
consultation until now on this proposal in general terms, as well
as a specific failure to engage with residents, who were elderly or
otherwise hard to reach.
- Ms Taylor advocated that common sense had to be used and that
the impact and cost to residents had not been properly
understood.
- Mr Jackson-Reeves commented that the proposal smacked of
tokenism and that the amount of money being spent on changing a
name could be far better put to use by supporting those most in
need.
- It was reiterated that the number of places that a
person’s address was officially registered had not seemingly
been fully appreciated and that a cursory search online would show
how important a person’s address was. The cost to people of having to change all of
these and the time and effort spent doing so was unrealistic for a
lot of residents.
In response to the
deputation, the Committee put forward a number of
questions:
- In response to a question around the consultation process, the
deputation party advised that the consultation was very limited and
that this had primarily consisted of one letter sent out to
residents in June/July, which a number of residents did not receive
due to some people’s addresses being missed off the list. The
Committee was advised that the whole consultation process seemed to
be very confused, particularly in terms of the order in which
things had been done. Further concerns were outlined with this
taking place during Covid-19 and an inability to meet with the
Council in person to discuss the matter. Mr Jackson Reeves set
...
view the full minutes text for item 169