Consultation outcome

Government response to the technical consultation on street naming

Updated 5 July 2022

1. Introduction

How streets are named can make an important contribution to local identity and a sense of pride in place; and how they are changed can build or reduce trust in local systems and institutions.

The current system for changing street names relies upon 3 Acts of Parliament which date from the early 20th century and create nationally inconsistent and unclear procedures. Under the existing legislation, many local authorities have the power to change the name of a given street without engaging residents or businesses on that street.

The government are concerned that this can allow local heritage to be erased without local residents being properly consulted. Therefore, on 11 April 2022, the government published the technical consultation on street naming seeking views on both the principles but also the detailed questions of how to define the electorate (i.e. who should have the right to vote on a street name change), the process for engaging with the electorate, and other issues that might be covered in regulations and any statutory guidance.

The consultation closed on 22 May 2022 and all responses have been carefully considered.

2. Overview

The consultation comprised 12 questions, of which the majority required “yes, no, or unsure” answers, with a follow-up free text option in which respondents could provide reasons and context for their answers, as well as their own policy suggestions.

There were 443 responses to the technical consultation on street naming. Not all respondents answered every question.

All responses have been analysed and given full consideration in the preparation of this response. Where respondents did not answer the pre-defined questions but did offer comments on the proposals they have not been included in the statistics (i.e. grouped into the “yes, no, or unsure”), but the content of these comments has been analysed and included in the statistics given for respondents who provided additional comments. We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond.

The table below provides a breakdown of the consultation responses by type of respondent:

Type of consultation respondent	Number of responses
Personal view	362
Local authorities (including National Parks, Broads Authority, the Greater London Authority and London Boroughs)	57
Government / Arm’s Length Body	1
Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)	1
Community Group / Parish Council / Neighbourhood Forum	14
Business / Trade Body	4
Other	2
Organisation total	79
Prefer not to say	2
Total number of responses	443

This document provides a summary of the consultation responses received. It does not attempt to capture every point made. It also sets out the proposed changes the government is intending to make to the ways that streets are renamed through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.

3. Defining the electorate

Question 1

Do you agree with the principle of a requirement that communities on a street be involved in the decision-making process before the name of a street can be changed? (this would require a change to primary legislation)

Question 1 response

• Yes: 88%
• No: 7%
• Unsure: 5%

There were 439 responses to this question. Of those who responded, 88% agreed with the proposal that communities on a street should be involved in the decision-making process before a street name is changed. 7% of respondents disagreed, and 5% were unsure.

92% of the organisations that responded to the consultation were in agreement with this proposal, with 87% of respondents in a personal capacity agreeing. Points raised included:

• 11% of respondents who provided additional comments to this question said that communities on a street should be involved in the decision-making process before the name of a street can be changed because of the impact of street naming changes on residents. The most cited impacts included the financial, administrative, and emotional impacts on local residents of changing a street name.
• The importance of historic street names and the sense of heritage they hold to local communities was cited by 8% of respondents as the reason why residents should be involved in the decision-making process if a street is proposed for renaming.
• 7% of respondents who provided additional comments to this question said that residents should be engaged in street renaming processes because it was democratically the correct thing to do – i.e. to seek input from those most affected by a change. Nearly a third of respondents who provided a comment to this question (30%) gave a response that focussed on democracy being a driver for their answer – either stating that it is democratic to seek input from local residents, that they wanted engagement to be meaningful, or that those who have been elected by local residents have the democratic powers to make decisions on name changes.
• Some respondents (7% and mostly local authorities) said that the current system allows for engagement by residents in the street renaming process. Many local authorities who commented in this way said that they currently adopt the principles in the 1907 Act (i.e. securing two-thirds agreement from local residents).
• 7% of respondents said that engagement of local residents was important, but there must be meaningful engagement of residents i.e. it should have an impact on the outcome and there should be a minimum threshold for participation from the local community. 6% of respondents commented that in addition to residents of a street, those affected by street name changes (such as residents of adjoining streets) should also be engaged.
• A small number of respondents (2%) said that introducing engagement with residents would either create additional resource burdens on local authorities, or there would be additional cost burdens on local authorities that would be needed to be met by the council tax payers. The same number of respondents said that local authorities already have a mandate to change street names (given they are democratically elected) and should decide on renaming streets.

Question 2 and Question 2a

Do you agree that local authorities should give votes to those who are on the local government electoral roll for the street in question (i.e. as prescribed in section two of the Representation of the People Act 1983)?

If you answered no to question 2, how should eligible voters be defined?

Question 2 response

• Yes: 75%
• No: 17%
• Unsure: 8%

There were 439 responses to this question. Of those who responded, 75% agreed with the proposal that local authorities should give votes to those who are on the local government electoral roll for the street in question before a street name is changed. 17% of respondents disagreed, and 8% were unsure.

59% of the organisations that responded to the consultation were in agreement with this proposal, with 78% of respondents in a personal capacity agreeing. Points raised included:

• 16% of respondents who provided additional comments to this question said that they agreed with the proposal to use the electoral roll but they felt that the area eligible to vote should not be confined to the street in question but should be broadened out.
• In total, 23% of respondents expressed a concern that using the electoral roll would exclude some residents from voting on a change to the street name – this included concerns that business owners would not be on the electoral roll on the street in which their business is located.
• 5% of respondents commented that instead of using the electoral roll, one vote per property should be allocated and this should either be used by the landlord or tenant (in cases where the property is rented).
• A small number of respondents (3%) said that voters should have to have lived on a street for a minimum amount of time (typically 2 to 3 years or longer) to be able to vote. Most of these respondents expressed a concern that temporary residents (i.e. students or renters) would be able to vote to change a street name but move shortly after. In these instances the respondents said that votes should be reserved for permanent residents (i.e. owners).
• Of those respondents who disagreed that the electoral roll should be used to define the electorate for street naming, 27% of respondents who commented said that there should be a vote for every resident on the street. 16% of respondents said that the vote should either be one vote per property, or that the property owner should get a vote. 9% of respondents commented that the vote should be for council or business tax payers only.

Question 3

Do you agree that local authorities should engage both residential and non-domestic premises (i.e. businesses) before the name of a street can be changed?

Question 3 response

• Yes: 81%
• No: 13%
• Unsure: 6%

There were 439 responses to this question. Of those who responded to the question, 81% were in agreement that local authorities should engage both residential and non-domestic premises (i.e. businesses) before the name of a street can be changed. 13% of respondents disagreed, and 6% were unsure.

95% of the organisations that responded to the consultation were in agreement with this proposal, with 78% of respondents in a personal capacity also agreeing that both residential and non-domestic should be engaged before a street name can be changed. Points raised included:

• 53% of respondents who provided a comment said that businesses should be engaged on a street name change because they also bear a financial and administrative cost when street names are changed.
• 7% of respondents said that businesses should be consulted before a street name changes but only independent businesses should be able to vote.
• 14% of respondents said that any consultation on changing the name of a street should be open to residents only, with 3% of respondents commenting that residents’ views should hold more weight than business’ views.

Question 3a

If you answered yes to question 3, should a new system allow for votes to be counted from both businesses and residents on a street?

Question 3a response

• Yes: 75%
• No: 15%
• Unsure: 10%

There were 381 responses to this question. Of those who responded to the question, 75% were in agreement that a new system should allow for votes from both businesses and residents on a street before the name of a street can be changed. 15% of respondents disagreed, and 10% were unsure.

82% of the organisations who responded to this question agreed that votes should be counted from both businesses and residents on a street. 73% of respondents in a personal capacity agreed with this proposal. Points raised included:

• 36% of respondents who commented on this question said that businesses should get a vote in a new system for street renaming because of the financial and administrative impact of changing addresses.
• 16% of respondents commented that a business vote should be limited to a single vote for the business owner. A further 7% of respondents said that there should be a balance struck between residential and business votes, with votes from residents having slightly more weight than businesses.

Question 4

Do you agree that regulations / statutory guidance should set out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name?

Question 4 response

• Yes: 91%
• No: 5%
• Unsure: 4%

There were 439 responses to this question. Of those who responded to the question, 91% were in agreement that regulations / statutory guidance should set out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name. 5% respondents disagreed, and 4% were unsure.

93% of the organisations who responded to this question agreed that there should be regulations or statutory guidance outlining how local authorities should seek consent for changing a street name. 90% of respondents in a personal capacity agreed with this proposal. Points raised included:

• 29% of respondents who provided a comment to this question said that regulations or statutory guidance would provide a more formal and consistent process across the country for local authorities to follow.
• 15% of respondents commented that the process for seeking to change a street name should be down to local authorities to decide, with 8% of respondents stating that some councils already have processes in place.
• 6% of respondents agreed that there should be regulations or statutory guidance but these should be limited in scope and not too prescriptive to allow for local needs to be taken into account.

Question 5

There may be some instances where there are no / very few local taxpayers in the street proposed for a name change. For example, this could occur in public squares where there are no residents or businesses in the square, but there are in the surrounding streets. How should the regulations / statutory guidance deal with the status of electorate views in this situation?

Question 5 response

• An expectation of consultation with street(s) immediately surrounding the public square to obtain consent: 33%
• Eligibility to vote extended to all in a defined parameter around the affected area: 45%
• Unsure: 22%

There were 438 responses to this question. Of those who responded, 45% believed that in instances where there are no or very few local taxpayers in the street concerned, eligibility to vote should be extended to all in a defined parameter around the affected area. 33% respondents said that there should be an expectation of consultation with street(s) immediately surrounding the public square to obtain consent.

49% of the respondents in a personal capacity who responded to this question said that eligibility to vote should be extended to a defined perimeter around the affected areas. 26% of the organisations that responded agreed with this proposal.

35% of respondents in a personal capacity said there should be an expectation of consultation with street(s) immediately surrounding the public square to obtain consent. 24% of the organisations that responded agreed with this proposal. Points raised included:

• 37% of respondents who provided a comment to this question commented that in the event of no residents on a street, the area for eligibility should be extended to the wider borough or parish to make the decision.
• 10% of respondents said the vote should be extended to a small number of adjacent streets i.e. those streets that share a junction or connect with the park or square that is proposed for a street name change. 10% of respondents said the parameters should be set locally rather than defined nationally.
• 16% of respondents said that the decision to change a street name should be taken by local authorities if there are no residents on a street to engage regarding the street name.
• A small number of respondents (3% of respondents) said that in this situation the decision should be made by central government.
• 3% of respondents who provided a comment to this question said that where the location being proposed for a name change is of national significance the vote should be extended. Most examples given were in London (e.g. Trafalgar Square) with respondents saying a vote in this situation should be extended to the whole of London or even nationally.

4. Processes for engaging with the electorate

Question 6a

Our proposals would require local authorities to gain the consent of a local electorate before the name of a street can be changed. Through which channels do you think it would be most effective for local authorities to engage with the local electorate before any vote of consent?

Question 6a response

• Web based consultation / questionnaires: 56%
• Consultation or questionnaire administered in person: 77%
• Local community meetings: 45%
• Focus group / workshops: 13%
• Social media: 28%
• Other: 9%
• Unsure: 1%

This was a multi-select question and percentages given are total number of respondents selecting each option so will sum to over 100%.

There were 438 responses to this question. Of those who responded to this question, 77% said that local authorities should engage with the local electorate through a consultation or questionnaire administered in person (i.e. door to door / postal). 56% of respondents stated that there should be web based consultation or questionnaires from the local authority. In addition, 45% of respondents said local authorities should engage the local electorate through local community meetings, and 28% commented that social media should be used to engage the local electorate before any vote of consent.

70% of organisations who responded to this question said that engagement with the local electorate should take place through door to door or in-person consultations or questionnaires. 62% of organisations were in agreement that there should be some form of web based consultation or questionnaire.

Among respondents in a personal capacity responses to this question, 78% agreed with door to door or postal consultations or questionnaires. 55% agreed that local authorities should use web-based consultations or questionnaires to engage the local electorate, and 47% of respondents in a personal capacity agreed engagement should take place in local community meetings. 28% of respondents in a personal capacity said that social media should be used for engagement. Points raised included:

• 25% of respondents who provided a comment to this question indicated that local authorities should use hybrid methods to engage with the local electorate to reach as many of the local electorate as possible.
• In addition, 12% of respondents cited concerns around digital exclusion among some groups (specially the elderly) when deciding on how to engage with the local electorate.
• 18% of respondents said that any engagement should ensure participation from local residents only, i.e. checks should be in place to ensure engagement or votes are not subject to fraud from those not in the defined electorate, nor contain over-representation from some activist groups interested in street naming.

Question 6b

How long should be the minimum length of time for engagement with the local electorate?

Question 6b response

• Less than 2 weeks: 1%
• Between 2 to 4 weeks: 23%
• 1 month or longer: 71%
• Unsure: 3%
• Other: 3%

There were 438 responses to this question. Of those who responded to the consultation, 71% believed that local authorities should engage with the local electorate for at least one month. 23% of respondents said engagement should last between 2 and 4 weeks. 1% of respondents said the engagement should last less than 2 weeks and 3% were unsure.

49% of the organisations who responded said that engagement should last for at least one month. 47% of organisations said engagement should last between 2 and 4 weeks. Among respondents in a personal capacity, 75% agreed that engagement should last at least one month, with 18% saying engagement should last between 2 and 4 weeks. Points raised included:

• 35% of respondents who commented on this question said that the timings that are set for engagement should be sufficiently long to allow for proper consideration by residents. This included allowing time to make them aware of the engagement activity itself.
• Furthermore, 26% of respondents said that timings should be long enough to enable those who may not be living on the street at the time of the engagement (either because they are on holiday, are in hospital etc) to participate in the engagement exercise.

Question 6c

Do you agree that the minimum threshold of the local electorate that need to have voted in favour for the local authority to be able to change a street name should remain two-thirds as set out in the 1907 legislation?

Question 6c response

• Yes: 77%
• No: 16%
• Unsure: 7%

There were 438 responses to this question. Of those who responded to the question, 77% were in agreement that the minimum threshold of the local electorate that need to have voted in favour for the local authority to be able to change a street name should remain two-thirds. 16% respondents disagreed, and 7% were unsure.

72% of the organisations who responded to this question agreed with the threshold for consent being set at two-thirds. 78% of respondents in a personal capacity who answered this question agreed with a threshold of two-thirds. Points raised included:

• 36% of respondents who provided a comment to this question said that given the administrative burden of street name changes on local residents, two-thirds should be an absolute minimum, with many of these respondents stating the threshold should be three-quarters or higher.
• 16% of respondents commented that any vote should be a simple majority vote rather than a set threshold in agreement.
• 6% of respondents said that consideration needed to be given to whether the vote should be two-thirds of the eligible electorate or those who vote. Many of those who expressed an opinion said it should be two-thirds of the eligible electorate to avoid the impact of a low turnout.
• A small number of respondents (mostly local authorities) believed that the local authority should have some form of over-riding power over the vote in special circumstances – i.e. where the change of a street is felt to be in the public interest.

Question 6d

How long should be the minimum length of time before consent can be re-sought by local authorities (i.e. where any voting threshold are not met)?

Question 6d response

• 1 year or less: 8%
• Between 2 and 5 years: 15%
• Between 6 and 10 years: 19%
• More than 10 years: 49%
• Unsure: 6%
• Other 4%

There were 438 responses to this question. Of those who responded to the consultation, 49% believed that local authorities should wait at least 10 years before consent can be re-sought if a voting threshold is not met. 19% of respondents said the wait should be between 6 and 10 years, 15% said the wait should be between 2 and 5 years, and 8% said local authorities should wait a year or less. 6% were unsure.

32% of the organisations who responded to this question agreed that local authorities should wait between 2 and 5 years before re-seeking consent to change a street name. 28% organisations said the wait should be between 6 and 10 years.

55% of respondents in a personal capacity said that local authorities should be required to wait at least 10 years before re-seeking consent. 17% said the wait should be between 6 and 10 years, and 12% of respondents said the wait should be between 2 and 5 years. Points raised included:

• 20% of respondents who commented on the question indicated that a vote on changing a street name should be a ‘once in a generation thing’ – with the wait for re-seeking consent to be at least 10 years if not much longer.
• In addition, 14% of respondents expressed concern that if a threshold was not set, then local authorities or interested parties could hold constant votes until they get the result they want.
• 12% of respondents said that timings should be driven by local priorities and interests. Therefore if a significant number of residents were to have moved address since the previous vote, or a similar event/change in circumstances, then a vote should be allowed to take place.
• 16% of respondents said that cost and resource should be a consideration in determining timings for any votes when re-seeking consent from a local electorate. For example, consultation, engagement and votes could be resource and/or cost intensive for local authorities meaning regular attempts to change a street name should be avoided.

5. Other comments

Question 7

Is there anything else that you would like to see included in the regulations / statutory guidance for street names?

Question 7 response

• Yes: 52%
• No: 31%
• Unsure: 17%

There were 441 responses to this question. Of those who responded to the consultation, 52% provided comments on an additional thing they would like to see included in the regulations / statutory guidance for street names; 31% of respondents said there was nothing else they wanted to see, and 17% were unsure.

Points raised included:

• 28% of respondents who commented on this question said that regulations should include guidance on the names allowed if the local authority gain consent from the local electorate. This included streets being named after things/places relevant to their local area. Respondents also said that streets should not be named after living people, and some respondents said that emergency services should provide input to ensure names are clear and can be understood by the emergency services.
• 12% of respondents who provided a comment to this question said the scope of the proposals should be expanded to include monuments, statutes, parks, and also the naming of streets in new developments.
• 13% of respondents commented that street names should not be allowed to be changed, or that there should be limits on names that can be changed if the street is named after someone of historical importance.
• 6% of respondents (mostly local authorities) stated that regulations should include guidance on the practical processes for changing names – i.e. how people can propose a name change, and who pays for any consultation with residents.
• A small number of respondents (4%) said that regulations should define who should be engaged in each situation – for example for nationally significant streets or squares, the parameters for voting should be quite wide (some respondents said a national vote).
• In total 8% of respondents said that when the name of a street is proposed to be changed, those proposing the name change should make clear the reasons why the street name should be changed and consider how much the process will cost the local authority. A small number of respondents said that publishing the potential costs should be made mandatory.
• A small number of respondents said that regulations should include guidance on an appeals procedure (1% of respondents), or place limits on the numbers of times a street can be proposed for renaming (1% of respondents).

6. Government response and next steps

The government wishes to establish in law the democratic right of communities to be engaged and have their views taken into account before a street is renamed.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill introduced into Parliament on 11 May 2022 proposes to disapply the 1907 and 1925 Acts in England and amend the 1939 Act (which applies in Greater London) which allow street names to be changed by local authorities without the consent of those affected.

Having taken the responses to this consultation into account, the government considers that its proposed approach to modernising multiple Acts by replacing them with a clear requirement (based on the principles set out in 1907 legislation) is the most appropriate approach to establish in law the democratic right of communities to be engaged and to protect local heritage.

The government welcomes the strong support for the proposals in the technical consultation including:

• communities on a street being involved in the decision-making process before the name of a street can be changed
• local authorities giving votes to those who are on the local government electoral roll for the street in question
• local authorities engaging both residential and non-domestic premises before the name of a street can be changed
• regulations / statutory guidance setting out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name
• local authorities engaging the local electorate through consultations or questionnaires administered in person
• local authorities engaging the local electorate for at least 1 month
• the minimum threshold of the local electorate that need to have voted in favour of a street name being two-thirds or higher (as set out in the 1907 legislation); and
• local authorities waiting at least 10 years or more before re-seeking consent if the voting threshold is not met

If, as the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill proposes, ministers are given new powers to define the consenting population for changing street names, and to prescribe related matters on the process for engaging with the electorate, the views received in response to this consultation will help inform the contents of the regulations and guidance.

We will publish more information in due course, once the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill receives Royal Assent.