Agenda item

To introduce a Partnership Street Naming and Numbering Policy (report of the Assistant Director – Regulatory enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Regulatory which introduced a Partnership Street Naming and Numbering (SNN) Policy.

The Assistant Director – Regulatory introduced the report which included the following main points:

• That Street Naming and Numbering was a statutory function;
• That SHDC had an existing SNN Policy in place which had been reviewed and was to be introduced/aligned across the partnership;
• The purpose of the SNN Policy and reasons for/benefits of the current review; and
• The draft policy was detailed at Appendix 1.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members raised the following points in respect of the street naming decision making process:
  • Regarding the naming of streets after people, outlined at point 6.2. of the Appendix, a member cited an example of a new development which had utilised female forenames as street names and it was observed that a proven connection to the land appeared to be unclear/loose. Clarification was sought regarding the timescale for which a ‘historical’ connection could be applied; and
  • Members cited an example where concerns were raised regarding a developer proposal for a street name which was deemed inappropriate by the Parish Council and the community. Although the proposal was subsequently discarded, members sought clarification on the decision-making process.
    • The Assistant Director – Regulatory responded that:

§  The process for street naming was set out in the existing Street Naming and Numbering Policy which focused on a requirement for developers to consult with local communities and the Parish Council;

§  As part of the consultation process, it was advised that a pre-consideration process be undertaken where developers provided three options to Town/Parish councils for consideration. Where specific concerns existed, alternative options from Town/Parish Councils would be encouraged as part of the negotiation process;

§  Where an agreement between the developer and Town/Parish council could not be reached, SHDC was bound to uphold the objection and the decision would be referred to the Portfolio Holder;

§  Regarding the developer street name proposal which was discarded following concern expressed by the Parish Council, this represented a good example of the policy in action. Confirmation was given that developers did not have the overriding authority regarding street naming decisions; and

§  In respect of ‘naming after people’ evidence would need to be provided and considered as part of the process and assessed on a case-by-case basis. For a historical connection to be made, guidance stated that this be a ten-year period from the date of death.

• Members asked whether a register of potential street name options for developers was in place. 
  • The Assistant Director – Regulatory agreed that the utilisation of a register which listed pre-approved road names within parishes would be helpful. Enquiries would be made as to whether a register was already in place at South Holland. It was noted that members at Boston Borough Council had also suggested this approach during recent scrutiny of the policy.

• Members queried whether the charging of a fee to name an established property was a new policy. In addition, where an owner sought reinstatement of a lost or disused house name, would a charge still apply.
  • The Assistant Director – Regulatory responded that:
    • The application of a charge for the naming of properties was inherent to the existing policy; and
    • Discretion may apply regarding the reinstatement of lost house names however this would be investigated and reported back to the committee.

• Members noted the policy of avoiding similar road names within the local authority area/town however it was felt that consideration should be extended to the names of streets outside of the district council borders but that were within a reasonable proximity of an adjoining neighbouring district.
  • The Assistant Director – Regulatory agreed with this suggestion and a point to this effect would be included within the draft policy.

AGREED:

That after consideration of the Partnership Street Naming and Numbering Policy at Appendix 1, the comments of the panel be noted.