£81,000 pa Mayor: Croydon is too skint to oppose ULEZ

Jason Perry, Croydon’s Tory Mayor, says that his cash-strapped borough doesn’t have enough money to join the Judicial Review legal action being brought by other outer London boroughs against the expansion later this year of ULEZ – the Ultra Low Emission Zone.

Air quality control: ULEZ reduces traffic, and pollution. Croydon’s Mayor Perry opposes that

A pro-pollution, Perry-backed motion to oppose ULEZ was recently defeated at a meeting of Croydon’s full council.

Four London boroughs – Bexley, Bromley, Harrow and Hillingdon councils, all Conservative-controlled, as well as Surrey County Council – announced this week that they are seeking a Judicial Review against the ULEZ scheme.

In November, Mayor Perry issued Croydon’s third Section 114 notice in two years – effectively admitting that he would not be able to balance the borough’s budget.

Perry’s reluctance to join the Tory councils’ anti-ULEZ action appears to signal a sharp U-turn by the Mayor over costly legal fees.

Official figures obtained last year showed that Croydon Council spent £2million over two years with a single firm of solicitors.

Last November, the council spent an estimated £20,000 when it sought a High Court injunction against this website because we published documents which the council had already published. Mayor Perry did not intervene on that occasion.

According to the BBC, Croydon’s £81,000 per year Mayor said, “We have been working really closely with the other boroughs all the way through… [but] because of our financial situation we cannot commit to financing a Judicial Review at this time.”

Opting out: Mayor Jason Perry

Pro-pollution Perry has also said that Croydon will refuse to sign an agreement with Transport for London allowing it to install ULEZ cameras – a feeble bit of Mayoral muscle flexing, because he knows that TfL has the power to install two-thirds of the 2,750 necessary cameras for the scheme without seeking permission.

A spokesperson for Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said: “We will be defending any challenge to this vital scheme. The Mayor urges the councils involved to abandon this costly and unnecessary legal challenge and instead focus on the health of those they represent.”

About insidecroydon

News, views and analysis about the people of Croydon, their lives and political times in the diverse and most-populated borough in London. Based in Croydon and edited by Steven Downes. To contact us, please email inside.croydon@btinternet.com
This entry was posted in Bexley, Bromley Council, Croydon Council, Environment, Health, London-wide issues, Mayor Jason Perry, Mayor of London, Outside Croydon, Sadiq Khan, ULEZ expansion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to £81,000 pa Mayor: Croydon is too skint to oppose ULEZ

  1. To quote W.B Yeats “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold.” All the Perry promises disintegrate, clean up Croydon, resolve the Borough’s financial problems, get the Negreedy £ back, have pollution free school roads, not to seek further indebtedness from central government. How did this clown get elected when there were decent candidates in the field?
    I must admit however that I’d be pleased to see the anti- ULEZ plots fail as the priority should be on anti-pollution and pro- health.

  2. derekthrower says:

    Oh bless. If we could only tap the hot air that comes out of Part Time. Then Croydon could finally make the dent into the debt mountain he is unable to achieve by his decision making.

  3. Ian Kierans says:

    Upset a senior Council person and publish the truth and get a law suit – A mayor taking action that perhaps will protect vulnerable people with chest issues and children? Oh no – another mayor says no money for that legal action even divided amonst 5 Tory Councils. Amazing what the legal priorities are for this council!
    The ULEZ may or may not clear up air overall. But curtailing lorries and the pollution emanating from the incinerator would be a definite benefit – hows that application to increase burning going Mr Mayor? Perhaps a little more focus on residents would be a good thing?

  4. Jack Newton says:

    15% Perry is finished. ULEZ is a distraction.
    Perry likes spending other people’s money too much. We want him out.

  5. Sarah Fretton says:

    Next we’ll be told 15%Perry voted for Brexit!
    He’s that thick, he probably did.
    He should go back to selling PVC gutters – hes not fit to be in public office.

    • Perry’s never stopped selling PVC gutters, His company also sells PVC cladding. The products are certified to BS476 Part 7 or BS EN 13501-1. If you think that means they’re fireproof, you’d be mistaken. Want to turn your home into a fire hazard? Perry will take your money

  6. Patricia Smithson says:

    It’s becoming increasingly clear Perry is not the sharpest tool in the transit van but who’s pulling his strings in the background?

    Has Cummings been steering things behind the scenes? Is Cummings a bit of an austerity dementer who’s long wanted to let rip on the people of Croydon? – built up over 10 years and he’s now like an old dog on heat.

  7. Ian Kierans says:

    One could begin to suspect Gove does not really like Perry.

    But does no one find it hypocritical that Gove with Brexit was all with the referendum – but oops has no problem cancelling one that is part of a process to have an above 5% increase?
    Perhaps his response was misconstrued? Perhaps we are maligning him wrongly?

    Perhaps he actually meant there was no point in having one as the outcome was already clear. Perhaps better to not have the definitive No!
    No itself being a eupemism for
    1. Are you deranged?
    2. On Crack?
    3. Politically Suicidal?
    4. All the above?

    Can any sane person actually imagine a referendum were there was a two thirds majority actually voting to give 15% more money in tax to pay off someone elses bad habit?
    I am sure it will happen somewhere sometime – but then I am on a lot of medication and I imagine all sorts of shit at times – like Cowboy style building work being ”perfectly legal developments”!

    Perhaps in the referendum were we decide what services the increase goes to – does not have the option ”pay of debt interest profligate strong leaders and Government created, back to Government and get SFA in return?

    Think of all those Laws, Regulations, their processes and administration.
    Then we get the Brexit G man saying lets just cancel that shit!
    O.K its not democratic but hey the Mayor can blame anyone but himself and we can get away with it again so why not?
    Could it be – lets give ‘ol Sunak a bit of a local row to undermine his Premiership? Maybe a manufactured excuse for him to beg off the protocol agreement discussions? Maybe he said as an aside as he wandered to meet the Brussels sprouts ”hey Govey create a kerfuffle and I can escape strategically without causing offence if it goes badly” Good chap?

    Or was this Mr Goves statement to Croydon? Is he saying ”sod democracy, forget Rights, don’t even bother protesting – best you Pucker Up Folks – this is going to be the shafting of the Century”!

    I very much doubt all the above is actually happening but I am sure it crosses many minds a lot of the time.

    The truth is there is no money, Mr Gove knows there is no money everyone knows there is no money, The Emperor has been bare ass naked for a long time.

    Andrew has a point with Funding in another article on IC – There are funding regulations for innner and outer areas. Lambeth by luck is inner – Croydon is outer – so tough. Yes that needs changing and funding methods reviewed but that will not happen in time for even next years Council tax increase.

    And even if it does it may not favour Croydon but shaft Lambeth instead.

    This Government also has other outer Boroughs that would claim the same and would set a precedent to allow that. So though the intial act would benefit Croydon initially, which is not a bad thing – the reality may not be a good thing as in this case the mutiple claims for equal treatment may bankrupt the nation which by default would make our situation even worse.

    No Council would take responsibility for it’s actions – ever. Why should it?

    There sadly are more realities and unpleasant choices than just this one.
    Funding is a complex situation with no one off solution visible or viable to resolve Croydon’s woes

    But Mr Gove has to ensure that effective oversight is brought back and Council excess prevented.

    He has to solve with Hunt the manner and means for sustainable Local Government and local administration.

    This may mean larger public bodies – regional government in England.
    Ideas that work public assets effectively and return income or defray costs to the public purse.
    Local administrations that deliver, are honest and openly accountable and are sustainable.

    So perhaps why not treat Croydon as a Pilot for how to transform a Borough and ensure future self sufficiency. Put it into specal measures and out of Local Council funding outer – remove the precedents, create new legislation to allow Croydon as a trial to test viability of alternatives

    That may cost £1.5 bn to fund initially – but the value of the outcomes could change the way of funding and enabling Local Government for the rest of this century and drive a regeneration across the Country thereby improving performance as a Nation.

    So perhaps Mr Gove could ask Mr ‘unt to take a unt and not be a unt – please insert Capital letter as appropriate from H,P,C)?

Leave a Reply