British poet Rupert Brooke once designated a corner of a foreign field as “forever England,” but after a heated discussion last night, the traffic and transportation committee of Community Board 2 unanimously voted not to recommend co-naming a portion of Greenwich Avenue in the West Village “Little Britain.

The resolution will now go before the full board.

Sean Kavanagh-Dowsett, an owner of three British-themed businesses on Greenwich Avenue, including the restaurants Tea & Sympathy and A Salt & Battery, had made an impassioned case in favor of the naming. He said there is another British-style business on the block and still another likely coming. He also stressed the significant support from local businesses and residents. A stack of local letters, as well as an online petition of nearly 6,000 names in support (57% of which were from New York) was presented.

He also said naming the street Little Britain would draw business to the area, and help protect the charm of the neighborhood. “There’s a bit of an English feel to the neighborhood, Mr. Kavanagh-Dowsett, told The New York Sun.

But members of the committee expressed a few doubts. One committee member, Ian Dutton, pointed out that New York is already named for a part of Britain. Sean Sweeney, who is also on the committee, asked about the role of Virgin Atlantic Airways in the campaign to co-name the street. Mr. Kavanagh-Dowsett said he approached the airline, not vice versa, and that some of the plans for what has become the Virgin empire were first drawn up on a napkin at the White Horse Tavern on nearby Hudson Street.

A resident of Horatio Street, Joan Kenney, spoke in support of the naming, saying it would help local businesses. So did Daniel Neiden, who leads tours of the area. He said it would be unique and ignite interest in and discussion of the area’s history and lore.

But another Village resident, Jessie McNab, spoke against the proposal, citing its “self-promotional” nature. A fellow long-time resident, Miriam Sarzin, likewise said the idea was “misguided” and said that other neighborhoods named for countries, such as Little Italy or Chinatown, are so-called because of the many residents who hail from the locale in question.

Earlier in the month, Community Board 2 issued guidelines for co-naming streets that were cited during the debate, in particular a stricture against co-naming streets for “commercial benefit.” Reaction among those involved in the British-themed business community appears to be mixed. Peter Myers of Myers of Keswick, a British comestibles store a couple blocks west, told the Sun that after being in that area for 22 years, he didn’t think it would really make much difference whether it is named “Little Britain.” In Britain, during the time of the meeting, he said he doesn’t think people flock to 47th Street because it is called “Little Brazil.” The British are “dotted all over the city,” he said.

By contrast, the executive director and almoner of the St. George’s Society of New York, John Shannon, who also was not at the meeting, told the Sun that the society had signed on in support of it and called it a worthy endeavor.

Mr. Kavanagh-Dowsett said that having the name “Little Britain” would reduce confusion between Greenwich Avenue and Greenwich Street. The street name would be a “second signpost,” he said. But one member of the committee told those attending that co-naming a street could also add confusion.

For now, it seems, supporters must maintain a stiff upper lip: The British evacuated New York City in 1783 and getting an urban designation isn’t going to happen overnight.