This case has now been closed. The Council had decided in May to re-name Bond Street Laine to “Bond Street Lane” if no-one objected. But some people did object.  The Council and the Court  did not disclose how many or the nature of the objections,  citing data protection issues. To stop the change,  a court fee of £200 had to be paid up-front by each objector to start the case.  And a further £500 had to be paid because it was being contested. 


One objector paid to get the case started on July 12th and dates were agreed for a full hearing in October.  The Council stated it would be calling three witnesses:  the Council Street Naming Officer, the campaigning member,  Delia Ives,  of the Brighton Society who started the e-petition to re-name the street and the well-known local historian Geoff Mead.


But by July 18th,  the Council had reviewed its position and concluded that it is not in the public interest to pursue the proposed change of name.  Thus was it that,  on July 26th,  three magistrates formally allowed the complaint. The Council agreed with the complaint and that it would be refunding the court fee. The Council officer,  when explaining the issue to the court,  said a “laine”  originally meant a “meadow.“


At no stage have the issues of the naming of Bond Street Laine been discussed openly,   transparently and meaningfully.


The e-petition last year was due to be discussed by the Council and the usual procedure would have involved an officer report and a committee meeting. But the petition was withdrawn. The Street Naming Officer, using delegated powers, posted a notice this year on a drain pipe which  started “public consultation” and, after a legal hiccup about dates, the objections flowed. There was no internal formal officer report, be it about semantics or an historical linguistic analysis of “laines” or even the legal implications of changing the name of a street in which “the people who have to put up with the name and are the ones who are born, work, live and die in that street.”


Local opinion was divided 51/ 49 against re-naming to “lane” in a poll run by the Argus in Feb/ March 2012. If anyone looks at Google Maps,  the incorrect “ lane” street nameplate is still there,  placed by the council itself.  In reality,  the correct “ Laine” nameplate was replaced recently after local complaint. Some recent digital maps use the incorrect “lane” and should be corrected for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever.  And the Brighton Society could put an interpretation board to explain the history of the area below the street nameplate itself.


I think there should be more streets named “laine” in Brighton not fewer,  now. 

================
Foot-note: The formal complaint stated:

1:  The proposed change street name by the Brighton Society is a disproportionate response to the claim that the use of  “laine” is incorrect.
2: The postal services and the emergency services have never been misled by this street name.
3:  The name “Bond Street Laine” is not capable of  misinterpretation as a location or as a direction.  
4:  “Laine” may be a Sussex term for an area of land rather than a type of street, but that is relatively inconsequential historically. Such historical inaccuracy is not a sufficient reason to change the name of a street.
5: In the only Guidance Note issued by the City on the matter,  the section on General naming conventions makes no mention of the need for the name to have an historical association or relevance. There is no mention of the circumstances in which re-naming  can be called for. Using the rubric of the Guidance Note, a street name is essentially “for the efficient functioning of postal and emergency services as well as for the convenience and safety of the general public.”  In none of these essential criteria has the applicant shown the street-name to be at fault. 
6: The naming of Bond Street Laine, over 30 years ago in 1981 by East Sussex CC, was conducted with due diligence.
7: The freeholder(s) and leaseholder(s) of the 3 properties in the street did not propose the change.
8: The electoral roll dated 1983  and the Ordnance Survey map dated 1989 (1996)  shows the name correctly.