Forum Topics

Croydon: Borough’s voters choose directly-elected Mayor system in referendum

Support for a change in the governance arrangement was overwhelming (by DAVE HILL)Croydon Council will be led by a directly-elected Mayor (DEM) in future after voters expressed a strong preference for switching to the mayoral system at a local referendum held yesterday.Of the 58,897 people who cast votes, an overwhelming 47,165 chose to adopt a mayoral model, while only 11,519 opted to retain the current leader-and-cabinet set-up, under which the council leader is elected by fellow councillors rather than by voters. Turnout was 21 per cent.The referendum was held after a petition raised by pro-DEM campaigners last year secured enough signatures of borough electors, five per cent of them, to require the plebiscite to take place.The leader of the Labour-run council at the time, Tony Newman, was opposed to switching to the mayoral system. However, following Newman’s departure a year ago amid severe financial problems at the borough, his successor, Hamida Ali, took a more conciliatory approach.Hackney, Lewisham, Newham and Tower Hamlets have had directly-elected Mayors since early this century, and governance referendums held in the latter two boroughs in May saw local electors vote strongly in favour of retaining them.The workings of the mayoral system can vary, however, with power concentrated in the hands of a Mayor or devolved to councillors in different ways and to differing degrees. Croydon Council says its Mayor will appoint a cabinet and delegate powers to it “so that decisions are made collectively, as at present under the leader/cabinet model.”Both the mayoral and the leader-and-cabinet arrangements are termed executive models of governance, with most decision-making powers held at cabinet level.Labour in Croydon has been divided over the governance question, with local MPs Steve Reed and Sarah Jones opposed to adopting the mayoral system while key activists in the south of the borough have favoured it, along with Croydon South Conservative MP Chris Philp.The referendum petition was supported by a political coalition embracing Labour, a former UKIP candidate and residents’ groups unhappy with the “growth borough” policies of the council under Newman, particularly its enthusiasm for more house-building in a borough that has experienced a rapid population increase.Advocates argued that candidates seeking to become Mayor will have an interest in seeking support across the whole of the borough and tailoring policies accordingly, rather than concentrating their efforts on electoral wards they know they can win. Criticisms of the pro-DEM campaign have included claims that it is motivated by a desire to prevent more homes being built in affluent areas.SOURCE: https://www.onlondon.co.uk/croydon-boroughs-voters-choose-directly-elected-mayor-system-in-referendum/?utm_campaign=12721421_Key%20Issues%2013%20Oct%202021&utm_medium=email&utm_source=London%20Councils&dm_i=192K,7KNWT,M4M0DR,UU03B,1

Rosco White ● 1796d5 Comments ● 1796d

Failure to Display Public Notice on Planning Application

Ever since Ealing Planning Department stopped sending out Notification Letters giving 21 days in which to respond to planning applications nearby, the system of putting up the yellow Public Notices on lampposts has been less than perfect.Disregarding instances where developers have likely pulled them down, the Planning Department itself has not always acted sensibly to ensure that affected neighbours know what it being proposed at close proximity.In a case in Rotherwick Hill (part of the Haymills Estate in Ealing W5), an unneighbourly play tower & platform was erected without planning permission.  Eventually, planning applications were made but the Council did not put up any Notices in the road where the adjoining back garden of an Ashbourne Close neighbour would be badly affected and where the neighbour had previously complained about the unauthorised structure overlooking their garden.Because no yellow Public Notice was put up in Ashbourne Close, the most affected neighbour was unaware of the latest application and therefore did not write in within the usual 21 days - only finding out that an Appeal to The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) had been lodged months later.   Because the neighbour had not filed an objection at first instance, the rules did not allow her to respond to the Appeal!The writer contacted PINS to explain the situation which was made worse as the Appellant's Planning Consultants were stressing that the neighbour had not objected at first instance and therefore there was no problem!PINS however were not satisfied that natural justice was being observed and ruled that the affected neighbour should be allowed to make her objections.The Appeal was dismissed by PINS yesterday  - please see at:https://www.dropbox.com/preview/AppealDecisionDismissedByPINS.13thMay2021.pdf?role=personalThis result vindicates the objection of the neighbour in Ashbourne Close - the road in which the Planning Department failed to put up a Public Notice!V.Mishiku  - "The Covenant Movement" vmfree@madasafish.com

Victor Mishiku ● 1948d37 Comments ● 1813d