A post mortem has been scheduled for today (Tuesday July 9th). Next of kin have been informed. Officers from the road death investigation unit based at Catford are investigating. Enquiries continue, say police.
BIKER KILLED ON CENTRAL HILL
9 JulCOUNCILLOR LODGES FORMAL COMPLAINT OVER LAMPPOSTS REMOVAL “Croydon council is not here to be served by residents – but to serve residents”
8 JulWORKMEN BLOW A FUSE OVER LAMPPOST HUGGERS – Police called to Mowbray Road amid ‘harassment’ claims
4 Jul“I’m livid because we look after our neighbourhood, but the council are vandalising our street. “They have failed to reply to our emails. “The green option must be to upgrade the luminaries i.e. what they say they are going to do in the conservation zone.
One resident, Phil Kendall of Mowbray Road, recently wrote to Croydon council cabinet members Simon Hoar and Phil Thomas branding the changes ‘ tantamount to vandalism. He told them: .”I am writing with concern regarding the removal of the current Victorian style street lights in Mowbray Road
Skanska’s reply reads:
I am sorry if there is any confusion surrounding conservation areas. The authority have agreed a list of “street lighting” conservation roads of which unfortunately Fox Hill Gardens has not been selected to have enhanced columns installed of which the same applies for Mowbray Road.
Sorry I cannot be of more help in this matter.
Regards
John Algar
PFI (Private Finance Initiative) Contract Manager
Croydon & Lewisham Street Lighting PFI Alexis told News From Crystal Palace: “By the way contrary to Skanska’s assumption I’m Miss not Mr.”
Alexis has since written to Croydon council and had a reply from a representative of Cllr Thomas. She sent several questions to Croydon – and got answers back.
“Fox Hill Gardens is not a designated conservation area and for the purposes of the PFI it is not identified as an area that justifies or requires an increased lighting specification.
“Further additional dialogue via a public meeting to listen to the views of Fox Hill Gardens residents would not be able to exert any influence or alteration of the contractual arrangements and financial limitations of the street lighting PFI, would serve little purpose and may inadvertently raise expectations.
“The council’s street lighting PFI was agreed by cabinet members. “With regard to local character and historic assets, the council carried out a conservation area review in 2007-8 which underwent an extensive consultation process involving local residents associations leading to the designation of nine new conservation areas.
“When the scope and extent of opportunity contained within the PFI was investigated and developed in 2008, it was agreed that the borough’s statutory designated conservation areas, district centres and the metropolitan centre would be the only areas where a variation to the specification would be accommodated. “It was not possible to accommodate additional areas due to the financial limitations contained within the PFI contract. “Street Lighting does not require planning permission as its provision is covered under the Highways act
OVERGROUND FESTIVAL MOST SUCCESSFUL EVER – “Who needs Glasto?”
3 Jul6,000 EXPECTED AT OVERGROUND FESTIVAL THIS WEEKEND “bigger and better than ever thanks to sponsors”
27 JunORGANISERS OF this weekend’s Crystal Palace Overground festival are expecting 6,000 visitors to the Triangle area.
Gold sponsor and former festival organiser Andy Stem who runs the vintage eclectic shop Bambino’s on Church Road said: “I love being involved with the festival. “It’s a brilliant way to get everyone together from musicians to artists to local businesses.
THE POWER OF JUST DOING STUFF! “It’s not about waiting for permission” – Transition Town founder
25 Jun“There’s something we can do about this – it’s not about waiting for permission. “There’s an incredible opportunity to do something historic.” He then highlighted some Transition Town schemes across the globe – and one similar scheme which dates back more than a century:
‘BEDS IN SHEDS’ LANDLORD FINED AFTER FIRE HOSPITALISES TWO MEN
25 JunWHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH! Leading councillor and park user exchange views on litter in Crystal Palace park
13 JunTo: Cllr Colin Smith
Dear Sirs,
It is now the third year of my campaign to get SOMEONE in Bromley Council to listen to those of us who are regular park users to provide bigger bins in Crystal Palace park during the Summer months.
From pure frustration at the fact that nobody within the council has taken a single action during all this time to endeavour to alleviate the deteriorating situation. I have posted on YouTube the following slide show of images, taken on my morning walk yesterday. You should hang your heads in shame that you have allowed this neglect of this beautiful green space.
People now walk away from their picnics and leave their picnic debris in situ. They dump chairs, nappies, coats, bags – whatever they want to it seems because there are not being monitored. THAT is the ethos which you have enabled by your procrastination.
Where are the litter fines that Ward Security were supposed to be able to issue Mr Smith? I have seen no evidence of it. Please let me know how many litter fines Ward Security have issued in Crystal Palace park since their contract began.
We want bigger bins AND Ward Security to start issuing fines.
Are we to endure another horrible Summer of this?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4wHwezhQtg&feature=youtu.be
Regards, Trish Anderson
To: Trish Anderson
Dear Trish Anderson
Thank you for your email, but please don’t even think of attempting to lecture LB Bromley about its total and enduring support for Crystal Palace park or its commitment to the park’s future in ignorance of the facts.
Cllr Papworth, who you have copied in, will possibly be best placed to advise you as to the works of the regeneration board and our collective attempts to reshape its future on which he and I both sit.
Ill disciplined and ignorant people, (from many other south London Boroughs who contribute nothing) not the council, cause the mess, Bromley remain committed to continue clear up after them as best it can, despite its ever diminishing funding from the coalition central government.
If there have been previous requests (please advise) for larger bins, please let me know and I will follow up what progress might or might not have been made and update you.
I have asked Mr Toby Smith to update you as to Ward’s activities locally of late.
Please feel free to publish this reply as you deem appropriate.
Cllr Colin Smith
To: Cllr Colin Smith
While I agree that some of the litter must, in the first place, have been caused by “Ill disciplined and ignorant people”, you cannot have failed to notice from the video Ms. Anderson posted that much of the litter is piled up next to the bins. The people responsible for this are, I would suggest, neither ” Ill disciplined” nor “ignorant”; rather, they are frustrated to find that the bins are filled to capacity and that there is nowhere to dispose of their rubbish.
I welcome Toby Smith’s commitment to provide additional bins and to raise the level of enforcement. Might I suggest that this coming weekend we conduct a particularly thorough operation to issue some public and high-profile penalties?
Regards, Cllr. Tom Papworth
From: Cllr Colin Smith
To: Cllr Tom Papworth
Were and where it the case that people were placing their rubbish adjacent to the full bins I would agree that would not constitute being either “ignorant” or “ill disciplined”
Doing so helps to facilitate its quick removal and represents plain common sense.
That is not what Ms Anderson reported as happening :
That is what I was referring to.
Regarding organising a number of high profile blitzes on misbehaviour in the Borough’s parks, the matter is already in hand and by chance, a press release on related matters very nearly appeared in the local press this week.
Crystal Palace park will of course have its turn on the rota for pro-active intervention, along with everywhere else.
Regards Cllr Colin Smith
To: Cllr Colin Smith
Thank you very much for responding to my email.
Frankly, I was appalled by your tone. Please don’t attempt to lecture me about lecturing the council. How patronising!
Every day we hear from politicians who say that they need more people involved in politics at grass roots level. I’m afraid if your tone is indicative, then most people would say ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’ Why should we be talked down to by arrogant politicians like you?
It is surprising how quickly you forget that you are an elected public servant. It should be a privilege to address the concerns of the local community, not an irritant.
A friend of mine, Guy Beggs, commented on facebook in response to your reply to my email:
”A surprisingly 80s style pompous and arrogant response from a contemporary public servant! In the 10 years I have been using the park I have been dismayed to see what could be described as punitive neglect of this great public space by LB Bromley, so yes Cllr Smith we can and do presume to lecture you, and you would be well advised to do what we pay you for and listen.”
Hear! Hear!
In future, I choose to address my concerns regarding Crystal Palace park to Cllr Papworth and Toby Smith. They don’t appear to find my perfectly valid concerns regarding the litter situation an irritant, rather, an issue which many of the borough’s residents would like to see addressed and dealt with.
As a council tax payer, I am entitled to query why my local park, the jewel in the crown of Bromley’s parks, with Grade II listed status, is strewn with litter, in part caused by Bromley’s inability to provide bigger bins during the summer months. I struggle to understand how you can hold the portfolio executive councillor for environment and not want to try to solve the problem instead of trying to shoot the messenger.
Perhaps you need to engage with ordinary people a bit more councillor. After all, we’re all in this together, are we not?
Regards, Trish Anderson
Your opinion is noted.
Possibly you can explain why should Bromley council “hang its head in shame” when far from doing anything wrong, it is investing untold effort in Crystal Palace in an effort to engage all local boroughs in a campaign to return it to its former glory.
Furthermore I continue to refute your assertion that this (agreed) beautiful green space is being “neglected” in any way.
Like all of Bromley’s parks it is being, and will unfortunately continue to have to be, managed as best the council can on the reduced budgets available to us.
Yours sincerely
PASSPORT TO PALACE? “Golden opportunity to form another London borough”
6 JunCROYDON THREATEN PURGE OF TRIANGLE’S ADVERTISING BOARDS
5 JunTRADERS in the Crystal Palace Triangle are being told Croydon council enforcement officers could remove their signboards from outside shops and business premises – apparently without warning.
In a letter delivered to traders yesterday (June 3rd) – in at least one case by a police officer or a PCSO – ‘Mr. Travis Hill’ an enforcement officer for Croydon, warns that enforcement officers will be conducting weekly patrols and removing all obstructions on the public footway / highway deemed to be unsafe for pedestrians or causing an inconvenience but then adds:
“Your co-operation would be appreciated to prevent the issue of a statutory notice.”
The letter from Mr Travis Hill also states that “the obstruction of a public footway by store / business ‘A’ boards and other signage placed on the public highway / footway causes a considerable inconvenience to pedestrians and local residents.
“The council has certain rights and duties to make sure such obstructions are removed and enforce action against those who refuse to co-operate and ignore the council’s requests under section 152 (1) and section 154 (1) of the Highways Act 1980.”
But Croydon council’s implied threat to remove all obstructions without notice does not appear to be covered by section 152 (1) of the Highways Act which says:
Powers as to removal of projections from buildings
(1)A competent authority may by notice to the occupier of any building require him to remove or alter any porch, shed, projecting window, step, cellar, cellar door, cellar window, sign, signpost, sign iron, showboard, window shutter, wall, gate, fence or other obstruction or projection which has been erected or placed against or in front of the building and is an obstruction to safe or convenient passage along a street.
(2)A notice under subsection (1) above may, at the option of the authority, be served on the owner of the building instead of on the occupier or may be served on both the owner and the occupier.
(3)A person aggrieved by a requirement under subsection (1) above may appeal to a magistrates’ court.
(4)Subject to any order made on appeal, if a person on whom a notice under subsection (1) above is served fails to comply, within 14 days from the date of service of the notice on him, with a requirement of the notice, he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level 1 on the standard scale].
(5)Where an authority serve a notice under subsection (1) above on any person and he is guilty of an offence by reason of his failure to comply with a requirement of the notice within the time specified in subsection (4) above then, whether or not proceedings are taken against him in respect of the offence, the authority may remove the obstruction or projection to which the notice relates and may recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from the owner or occupier of the building if, in either case, he is a person on whom the notice was served.
AND SECTION 154 of the Highways Act 1980 covers “Cutting or felling etc. trees etc. that overhang or are a danger to roads or footpaths.”!!!!
(Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk )
The issue is set to be discussed at tonight’s meeting of Crystal Palace and Norwood Chamber of Commerce at the Phoenix Centre, Westow Street which starts at 6.30pm. The letter is marked:
ATTENTION Westow Street / Westow Hill / Church Street (sic).
A Croydon council spokesman said today (Wednesday June 5th): “It seems the letters in Upper Norwood are the result of a series of complaints and a subsequent walkabout that identified a number of problems in the area.”
IN JANUARY Croydon issued the following statement in the wake of local and regional news stories:
ADVERTISING CONTROLS TO REDUCE PAVEMENT CLUTTER
Proposals to make pavements in the (Croydon) town centre safer and less cluttered are to be considered by Croydon council.
With parts of the town becoming increasingly clogged with uncontrolled advertising signs, the plan is to bring in rules governing their size and location.
The roads where controls would apply include the area from East Croydon to Reeves Corner and from West Croydon to the end of Surrey Street.
If agreed, the plans would mean that businesses would be limited to just one pavement sign – usually known as an A-board – and hand-held placards would no longer be allowed anywhere in the area.
Initial talks with members of the local business improvement district have shown that such a decision is likely to be generally welcomed as it will improve the overall look of the town centre.
Cllr Simon Hoar, cabinet member for community safety and public protection, said: “Whilst we want to let the town’s businesses to continue to promote themselves, we do need to ensure that’s done in a sensible way. “Right now the spread of these boards is more like fly-posting, but by introducing these new rules we’ll be able to exercise much more control over the number, size and location of portable adverts.”
Full details of how applications for advertising consent would be assessed are contained in draft guidance that will be subject to a consultation period of at least three weeks. If the council decides to proceed with its plans then information on how to give views will be published in the local press, within the area affected and on the council website.