Agenda item

The Committee received a report which sought approval for the change of street name from Black Boy Lane to La Rose Lane, following a second consultation exercise with residents and the issuance of a ‘notice of intention’ for the change of name. At its meeting on the 3^rd December, the Committee agreed to move to a period of further consultation following the initial consultation exercise, carried out 28^th September to 9^th November 2020 which set out two alternative possible street names, and the selection of ‘La Rose Lane’ as the intended new name of the street. The report was introduced by Rob Krzyszowski, Interim Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability as set out in the agenda pack at pages 9-88.

The following arose during the discussion of the report:

1. The report set out examples of other relevant street & building renaming proposals, including those at Ealing and Brent. It was noted that there were no similar examples where the scheme involved consultation on such a large scale and where the authority had agreed to cover costs up to £300 per household.
2. As part of the second round of consultation, letters were sent out and those letters were available in 12 languages, notices were displayed on the street and responses were accepted through a variety of digital and non-digital mediums. An online resident engagement event was also held on 23^rd January 2021.
3. Officers set out that most of the costs incurred from the name change were notional costs and would be met from existing budgets.
4. The Chair noted the legal advice provided as part of the report and cautioned the Committee had already agreed the approach and timelines previously. The focus of the decision before the Committee was to agree the change of name and to comment on the financial package offered etcetera.
5. The Committee queried whether the £300 offered per household was sufficient, particularly in relation to changes to leases and solicitor costs. In response, officers advised that the £300 should be viewed within the context of the wider support package and the fact that one-to-one legal support, to help with changing of documents, would also be made available to affected residents. Consultation responses on this issue was mixed, with some people saying that £300 was too low and others suggesting that it was more than sufficient to cover costs.  Officers advised that they were satisfied that the package as a whole was sufficient to meet the needs of affected residents.
6. The Committee enquired as to whether there would be any additional funding made available for those affected. Officers responded that after consideration of the Committee’s previous comments, consideration had been given to means testing contributions but that the proposal was to stick with a flat rate and that proposals did not include provision of any additional costs above £300. Officers conceded that this could be reviewed going forwards, if it was not working and that the Council would always look to support its residents where it could.
7. The Committee commented that the alternative examples of other name changing schemes set out in the report were not directly comparable as both had a majority of respondents in favour of the name change and involved a low number of households affected. The Committee noted that the proposed scheme involved a high number of residents and of responses received from Black Boy Lane residents had a negative response to the consultation with around 71% of responses received from Black Boy Lane residents being against the change. The Committee commented that the legal advice was that the responses of the residents of the affected street had to be prioritised. In response, officers advised that the full legal advice was set out in the report and that this set out that any objections to consultation needed to be taken in to account. Officers also highlighted that the Council also had to give due consideration to the equalities impacts including the need to foster community cohesion.
8. Officers also directed the Committee to Paragraph 6.3 of the report, which showed that there was a 36% turnout from residents of the street, with 48 objections from Black Boy Lane (compared to approximately 183 properties on the street). Officers suggested that the remaining households (64%) were all contacted as part of the consultation and they had not objected to the proposals. 
9. The Committee also expressed concerns about undertaking a consultation during a lockdown and the disproportionate impact this could have on those who didn’t have access to IT. The Committee stressed the importance of the consultation being open and fair and suggested that with the easing of lockdown, there was an opportunity for officers to knock on doors and speak to people in person.  The Committee sought clarification on exactly how many properties were counted and whether the residents on Lincoln Mews were consulted. The Committee also sought assurance whether HMOs had been properly considered and what constituted a ‘household’.
10. In response, officers set out that two consultations had been undertaken as part of this scheme and the legal requirement was only for one. The first consultation was conducted in the autumn when there were less restrictions in place. Officers advised that multiple letters had been sent out to residents, starting in July, and that these letters included non-digital methods of responding to the consultation. Contact addresses were supplied with each of these letters for residents to get in touch with the Council on this issue and the Council had received feedback by post.
11. Officers advised that the number of addresses on the street was defined as per the street gazetteer, which was the national database maintained by the Council. This was 183. There were 13 HMO properties and 51 separate households, these figures were built into the financial modelling in the report. Officers confirmed that Lincoln Mews were not formally sent letters as part of the consultation but that there were street notices published on the adjoining Black Boy Lane. Any responses from the residents of Lincoln Mews were considered as part of the consultation process.
12. The Committee commented that they were concerned about how democratic the process was and that the residents who lived on Black Boy Lane would be most affected and so their views should be prioritised. Previously, the administration had looked into changing the name of Town Hall Approach to New Windrush Gardens and only the 52 residents and business on that street were consulted. Ultimately this was cancelled because of costs of around £21k  it was suggested that there seemed to be a lack of consistency around those who were consulted and the what was deemed to be an acceptable cost.
13. Officers responded that the legal position was that the statutory consultation was either done through letters to addresses on the street with a notice or notices be published in and around the street for the attention of those walking down the street. Officers advised that the Council did both of these and more, as part of its consultation process. Responses taken from people who saw the notices whilst walking down the street were a legitimate part of the consultation responses. A lot of consultation responses had been received by people who said that they were negatively impacted by the racist/offensive undertones of the existing street name.
14. Officers advised that in the example of renaming Town Hall Approach, this was not directly comparable as the existing name did not have a negative impact on some people within the community.  In relation to the cost, officers emphasised that the costs would be met from existing budgets and that there was no cost threshold to consider, as such, when determining whether to undertake a change of street name.
15. The Committee also commented that Cabinet had previously agreed to provide a policy on renaming streets and places. It was suggested that this policy should be in place before any renaming exercises took place.  Officers responded that there was existing guidance around street naming and that this proposal had been considered in light of that guidance as well having consulted with the London Fire Brigade and their renaming procedures.
16. Committee members acknowledged the need to change the street name and commented that they agreed that people found the current name offensive. However, the Committee raised concerns about the use of a flat rate of £300 to reimburse affected households and highlighted the fact that the Committee raised this issue previously at its meeting on 3^rd December. It was suggested that rather than means testing, all that was needed was to provide additional assurances that any additional costs would be met by the Council. It was suggested that the Council seemed to have gone about the process in the wrong manner and that residents needed to be properly engaged with in order to bring them along with the decision.
17. In response, officers assured the Committee that they had looked into this issue following the Committee meeting on 3^rd December. The report included a much more detailed analysis of the costs that people may occur, as set out in paragraph 6.8.  The vast majority of the changes that may occur either involved little or no cost, or the Council would be able to make the required changes themselves, as the public body that maintained the property gazetteer.  The areas where residents may incur costs, as set out in the report, included issues highlighted by residents, as part of this consultation process and this demonstrated that the Council had listened to their concerns.
18. The Committee questioned why the Council didn’t just agree to cover any legal costs incurred by residents. In response, officers advised that part of the wider support package included legal support and that the Council would review the costs going forward if it turned out that the £300 was insufficient.
19. The Committee set out that there needed to be a policy in place, which was being followed rather than going forward on a discretionary basis. It was suggested that the Council needed to ensure that no residents would be out of pocket as result of this name change and that a better job should have been done of communicating this to residents.  In response, it was noted that the report set out that many of the expected changes would not incur costs, including changes to wills and leases. The Committee reiterated that the Council should have just made a firm commitment that it would pay any additional costs that were incurred by residents and businesses.
20. In light of concerns around the potential for there to be a Judicial Review, the Committee questioned whether the exiting guidelines should be changed to omit the current stipulation that changes would only usually be permitted when they gave concern to the occupants of that location. In response, the Committee was assured that officers felt that the risks of a Judicial Review were very low, that the guidance had been fully considered and that the Council had met all of the relevant legal requirements in bringing this decision to the Committee.
21. A Councillor, who was not a Member of the Committee, addressed Corporate Committee and raised concerns about the timing of the whole process. In particular, it was queried why the consultation was done during the pandemic, given that residents would have other things to worry about. It was also commented that the threshold of how many people were in favour of the decision was important to residents, as was a perception that the consultation process was fair, and that the Council needed to take the objections of residents into account. The Committee also heard that it was important that the views of the George Padmore Institute were taken into account.

*Clerk’s note: 21:50 hours – As per Committee Standing Order 63, the Chair agreed to suspend CSO 18, and that the Committee would continue past the 10pm cut-off point.*

22. The Committee specifically queried whether the Council could provide a solicitor to residents to make any required legal changes. In response, officers commented that they were open minded about how this support would be done. It was suggested that the initial thought was to provide one-to-one support in a manner redolent of the Citizens Advice Bureau. Officers agreed that they would bottom out this proposal and take it forward if the Committee was minded to agree to the change.  
23. In response to concerns around the number of responses to the consultation, officers advised that 742 responses from across the borough was quite  a good return rate for a consultation of this nature. By way of context, it was noted that the latest borough wide Local Plan consultation received around 1000 responses.
24. Some members of the Committee commented that that they were deeply uncomfortable with the existing name and that they were assured that the Council had done everything it practicably could to mitigate the impact of a name change. In response, the Chair set out that the whole committee felt that changing the name was an appropriate thing to do but that there were concerns over the timing of it and the nature of the consultation.
25. The Legal Advisor on the proposal assured Members that the consultation had been fair and reasonable and that the statutory process for the consultation had been adhered to, and in fact the Council had exceeded the statutory requirements.

*Clerk’s note: 22:10-22:14 - The meeting was briefly adjourned as the Chair’s internet connection cut out.*

26. Committee members commented that if it wasn’t for the fact that the majority of responses from residents on the street had responded against the change in the consultation then the Committee would have approved the proposal. A number of Committee members felt that additional consultation should be undertaken and that, as part of the communications materials involved, the Council should make it expressly clear that it would offer a solicitor to assist residents and would meet all reasonable legal costs.
27. Other members of the Committee commented that it was important that a decision was made that evening and that any delays would be tantamount to ‘kicking into the long grass’, especially as there were no guarantees that the pandemic would not necessitate further periods of lockdown.
28. The Legal Advisor reiterated that that statute clearly set out what the consultation requirements were and the expectation was that the Committee would adhere to these requirements, rather than creating their own requirements.
29. Cllr Brabazon proposed an amendment to the recommendation to the making of an Order under the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 Section 6(1) to rename Black Boy Lane to La Rose Lane to take effect on 1 October 2021. The amendment was that this should be delayed and that a further period of consultation be carried out with residents on a face-to-face basis with the aim of seeking the support of the residents of Black Boy Lane and providing those residents with additional assurances to their concerns, including improving the support package on offer where necessary. The amendment was seconded by Cllr Carroll.
30. A recorded voted was taken. Cllrs Brabazon, Berryman, Carroll and Rossetti voted in favour of the amendment. Cllrs Stennett, Emery, Demir and Barnes voted against the amendment. Cllrs Diakides, Dogan and Carlin abstained. The Chair used his casting voted in favour of the amendment. The amendment was therefore passed by five votes to four.

RESOLVED

The Committee:

1. Considered the feedback from the Consultation #2 (Statutory) ‘Notice of Intention’ on the renaming of Black Boy Lane to La Rose Lane, in particular, the objections from residents and organisations directly affected by the proposed renaming;

2. Considered and took into account the Equalities Impact Assessment (EqiA, Appendix 6 of the report) of the proposed change on protected groups and the actions proposed to mitigate the impact including a commitment to provide support, a dedicated staff resource and resident/organisation payments; and

3. Rejected the making of an Order under the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 Section 6(1) to rename Black Boy Lane to La Rose Lane to take effect on 1 October 2021 and requested that a further period of consultation should be carried out in order to provide further assurances to residents of Black Boy Lane and elicit their support for the change of street name. The Committee also requested that the support package offered to the residents be reviewed as part of the further consultation work.