Agenda item

* 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.

13. 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:

1. Considered the feedback from the Consultation #1 (Informal) on possible street names and to approve ‘La Rose Lane’ as the preferred choice;
2. 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
3. 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.