Croydon Conservatives - A Croydon to be proud of
News & Local Issues
Videos Videos
In Touch Newsletters
Parliaments & GLA 
Ward Teams 
Boundary Review 2018 
Croydon Central
Croydon South
Croydon North
Conservative Future
National Site
Get Involved
Privacy Policy & Cookies 
 The Coulsdon Town Blog
Cllr  Luke  Clancy
Cllr  Mario  Creatura
Ian  Parker

Speech on fly-tipping in Croydon
31/01/2018 07:06:00......Posted by Mario Creatura


On Monday's Council meeting I gave a speech on fly-tipping in Croydon - you can watch the speech here or read a transcript below:

I am pleased so speak in favour of this motion tonight, a motion that promotes a positive, proactive vision for boosting tackling the menace of fly-tipping in Croydon.

It’s something that residents right across the borough tell us is sorely needed. Despite what you hear from Labour’s spin rooms, the record of the current administration is one of downright failure.

The Evening Standard only in October last year revealed that Croydon was one of the worst boroughs in London for fly-tipping, the only borough south of the River Thames with a ‘high’ fly-tipping rate. Yet if you listened to our Labour-run Council, everything is wonderful!

Let’s look at the stats, in black and white, tell a different story: 2013-14, the year Labour took control of Croydon Council, and compare it to the latest stats from the Office of National Statistics:

-        Across London, fly-tips increased by 12% in that period.

-        Across England, it went up by 18%.

-        But in Croydon? It went up by a whopping 64%!

64%! If that isn’t concrete proof of a Labour Administration desperately out of their depth, then I don’t know what is.

To make matters worse, Croydon has the second highest clean-up costs of any London borough – even that would be bearable if it were effective. But it’s not. Our clean-up costs are only surpassed by Enfield, who deal with three times as many. 38% of our total clean-up bill goes on clearing just 8% of Croydon’s fly-tips! The unrepentant waste from our Labour Council is astounding. Think what we could do with that taxpayer money if it was run properly!

Where is the proactivity? Where is the innovation? Where is the real, tangible impact on improving the cleanliness of our borough? Cllr Collins is like the Wizard of Oz - big PR campaigns! Huge posters! Emails and leaflets galore! But peak behind the Wizard of Croydon’s curtain and you’ll see a propaganda machine in over-drive, Veolia contracts spiralling out of control and a small, scared Labour Party desperately hoping they can distract residents for just long enough that they cling on at the election in May.

But the people of Croydon aren’t fools. They know fly-tipping has got worse in the last three years – on Labour’s watch.

The people of Croydon aren’t fools. This closed and secretive Labour Council would do well to remember that, because their time hoodwinking our town is just about up.

Return to Coulsdon Town's main page
 Other Blog Posts

Future of Coulsdon Yulefest Christmas lights put at risk
24/02/2018 15:34:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura


I've just heard about something rather troubling that could seriously affect the future viability of our phenomenally successful Coulsdon Yulefest's each year.

I've written to the Labour Cabinet Member responsible, Cllr Manju Shahul-Hameed, to ask for an explanation and her support:

'Over the last few years, Coulsdon West councillors have used their community ward budget to fund the Christmas lights in Coulsdon Town. This has been done in many other wards across the borough including Thornton Heath and Old Coulsdon.

They are immensely popular, and we are proud to have been able to help our community in this way.

I have just been informed that Skanska have written to the organisers of the Coulsdon Yulefest to demand payment for the electricity for running the festive lights. This has come as a complete surprise to the team of volunteers who make no profit when putting up these lights and running the festival.

All monies raised go to funding the running of the festival, the putting on of entertainment and publicising our town which serves to benefit the local economy and wider community spirit. 

In five years of putting the lights up, the volunteers have never been asked to pay for the electricity. The Skanska representative has said that historic payments are not required, but that in future this is changing.

The estimate for the bill is some £200 - a very small sum for the Council but a huge amount for local fundraisers who give up much of their year to arrange our annual festival.

I would like to ask:

  • Do you feel it's right that community volunteers should be asked to fund the cost of the electricity for Christmas lights?
  • The historic waiver implies that the payment is new, and only recently has come into force. Was this with your knowledge and consent?
  • Could you please investigate and detail the reasons for Skanska implementing this community levy?
  • Dozens of residents' groups across the borough spend thousands of hours a year putting on free events, festivals and meetings to help stimulate their local area. They are the very fabric that makes Croydon the place we all love. What message do you feel it sends that the Council's contractor is adding further barriers to those groups wanting to help their neighbourhoods?
  • Will you please do all that you can to stop these charges going forward?

The fundraising is a yearly slog - anything the Council can do to remove this disincentive then that would be very welcome by my residents.'

I'll update the blog when we hopefully have a positive response from Cllr Shahul-Hameed.



Broken bog strikes again
17/02/2018 18:51:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura


The public toilet in Coulsdon Town, next to the Aldi, has been an ongoing problem for our town:

  • 6th May 2015 - I noticed it was broken and asked the Council to fix it.
  • 4th September 2015 - again it was broken, and taking too long to be fixed.
  • 23rd December 2015 - it was still broken - but I was assured it was almost to be repaired.
  • 14th January 2016 - it was finally open, finally fixed after waiting since September 2015!
  • 26th April 2016 - that didn't last long... For the two months preceding this post the toilet had no running water and the doors were unable to be locked. Thankfully in time it was fixed.

Over the last week it was brought to my attention that the toilet was broken - again. A resident in a wheelchair had needed to use the facility, when wanting to leave the toilet found that the handle was broken and that he could not leave. Only by calling a local friend was he able to escape.

This is completely unacceptable. I have spoken to the resident at length who has taken it all in good humour, but serious questions need to be answered about why this was allowed to happen:

  • What is the process for inspecting and maintaining public facilities?
  • When was the last time this toilet was signed off a clean/in good working order?
  • What is the security provision for protecting these sites from ne'er do wells who may wish to vandalise public property?
  • What is the procedure for the 'emergency call' buttons in the facilities? Residents who have tried to use it tell me that the support out of hours is limited and next to useless.
  • What lessons can be learned by the repeated issues with this toilet and others like it?

I have spoken to the Coulsdon Safer Neighbourhood Team who have very generously said they will keep an eye on the toilet when doing their rounds.

I am reassured by the correspondence I've had with the Council engineers but I will continue to raise this at the highest levels to ensure good service for my residents - no matter the issue.



Full openness and transparency on Brick by Brick?
25/01/2018 15:42:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura


'n a press announcement released on the 22nd January, the Council said:

'Developers in Croydon will now have the viability appraisal submitted as part of their planning applications made public.'

Cllr Alison Butler, Labour Cabinet member responsible, is quoted in the release as saying: “This is good news for Croydon residents. The publishing of these appraisals will make the council’s work with developers much more transparent and enables the public to hold both parties to account."

In that spirit of openness and transparency, I've asked if Cllr Butler will commit to implementing this policy retrospectively - and in particular agree to swiftly publish the full list of viability appraisals for all Brick by Brick schemes that have been already granted planning permission.

When she replies I will update this blog.



Council plans to demolish Community Centre and cut parking in Coulsdon
01/01/2018 18:21:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura


The Labour-run Council has recently put in a number of planning applications which will:

  • Demolish the Coulsdon Community Centre on Barrie Close and replace it with 33 flats
  • Move the Centre to the old CALAT site, cutting its parking provision by 1/3
  • Erect flats for some 237 residents, whilst cutting public parking provision in Coulsdon

I have written to the Council objecting to these plans. You can read my full arguments below. If you could like to do the same you can visit the applications and easily post your views: plan to demolish the Centre are here and the plans for Lion Green Road are here.

The more who object, and the more who attend the Planning Committee where it'll get decided, the more likely it is to be thrown out. I hope the Council will listen, and I'll be working with my fellow Councillors to do just that!


I would like to please object to two linked applications 17/06216/FUL and 17/06297/FUL and refer them both to the Planning Committee for refusal.

Taking them each in turn:

17/06216/FUL - demolition of existing community centre and erection of 33 residential units comprising 4 one bedroom flats, 12 two bedroom flats and 17 three bedroom houses, together with provision of car parking, landscaping and other associated works). My reasons are as follows:

1.     There is no compelling case for the Council owned and run development company to use Croydon taxpayer funds to relocate the Coulsdon Community Centre given its immense popularity with the thousands of residents who use it on a regular basis. It is fine where it is and has served its community very well under its current management committee.

2.     Parking is already very heavily congested at the section of Chipstead Valley Road that the Centre currently occupies, including the perpendicular roads of Coniston and Sherwood. One space per property for 33 properties is not enough for these new builds and will only make parking worse for those residents already in the locale - particularly those in Barrie Close.

3.     As the new proposed development is up hill from existing properties there is fear from the many residents who have contact me that they will be able to look down directly into bedrooms and bathrooms of existing properties, seriously affecting privacy and security.


The council’s own Development Presentations for item 5.1 of the Committee Planning Agenda for 21 November 2017 state: “Thought should be had in terms of mitigating the loss of privacy experienced at these properties, perhaps through landscaping provision.” The planning statement’s claim that “existing residents [sic] amenity is protected” is therefore contradicted by the council’s own documentation, and nothing has been included in the design to mitigate this issue.

The 21st November 2017 Development Presentations for item 5.1 of the Committee Planning Agenda state:

“It is considered that 3 storeys would be an appropriate maximum height for the properties to avoid the development having an overbearing impact on the surrounding 2 storey context. It is important that only the rooftops of the properties are visible through the trees from the surrounding area to be consistent with local character.”

The design of four storeys high is therefore contradictory to the council’s own development presentation. A reduction in the height/size of the development should be considered to mitigate these very real fears.

4.     There is fear that the removal of trees will negatively impact the local ecosystem.

5.     It is well known that the sewage system on this part of Chipstead Valley Road has overflown several times in recent years, adding this many properties to the outflow without heavily investing in underground sewage infrastructure is believed it will only make the problem worse.

6.     There are a large number of other residential developments that are either in construction, have been recently finished or have recently been approved including the hundreds of homes on Cane Hill, the Lion Green Car Park development, new flats at 177 Chipstead Valley Road, new flats at 193/195 Chipstead Valley Road etc. all with insufficient parking provision. Altogether, this will result in around an extra 900 dwellings in Coulsdon. Without any planned changes to the town’s infrastructure – especially with regard to trains, roads and schools – this is a clear case of over-development.

7.     The loss of the existing Coulsdon Community Centre building would be a sad event. The building dates to 1935 and has much architectural and historic interest to the local community. It is well-used, with 95% occupancy rate. Last year Cllr Timothy Godfrey, Labour Cabinet Member for culture, praised the community services offered by the Coulsdon Community Centre and has cited it repeatedly as an example of best practice in the borough. Demolishing this Centre seems entirely contradictory, hypocritical and destructive to our community.

17/06297/FUL - redevelopment of site to provide 5no. five, six,seven storey buildings providing 96 one bedroom, 42 two bedroom and 19 three bedroom flats: provision of vehicular access, residential and town centre car parking spaces, hard and soft landscaping works and new private and public amenity space.

1.     Out of keeping with the local area: the 7-storey buildings are at the back of the site where the elevation is higher.  The plans appear to reduce the elevation from the current level, however I believe the development will appear to be more like 8-stoeys above St Dunsten’s Cottages.

2.     The previous plans for this site proposed a non-residential development of four-storeys. This is significantly higher than that, and all other properties in the locale. Consideration should be considered to revise this application so that the height-limit is protected and therefore in keeping with the local area.

3.     There will be a loss of light to the rear of St Dunsten’s Cottages and Wells Cottages not to mention a loss of privacy at rear of St Dunsten’s Cottages homes, in back gardens and to Wells Cottages.

4.     St Dunsten’s Cottages are part of a Local Heritage Area.  The view of the cottages with towers over them will result in a significant loss of their aesthetic charm. There is deep concern that the huge scale of this development will put that at risk, harming the character of the local area which should be protected.

5.     Impact of increased traffic and changing traffic flows at the Chipstead Valley Road/Lion Green/Woodcote Grove Road junction.  This is further impacted by the development of the Coulsdon Community centre and the increased capacity planned at Smitham School.

6.     The Traffic Assessment makes no mention of the Chipstead Valley Road/Lion Green/Woodcote Grove Road junction. This surprised all of us as anyone local to the area would see the contact queue of traffic at that junction. Adding to this daily misery for my residents should not be something actively pursued by this Council.

7.     The biggest reason for objecting to this application, however, is lack of consideration for the increased strain on local infrastructure that the at least 237 additional residents (96 x 1; 42 x 2 and 19 x 3) will have. Virtually everyone agrees that Coulsdon needs more parking. The site has historically had 350 parking spaces, now cut to 115.

8.     The current Lion Green Road car park has over 100 of its 115 spaces used nearly all day. In the context of the rest of the town, there is no argument for reducing this provision:

o   The CALAT car park has 35 well-used spaces.

o   Aldi car park is often full with four or more queuing and over-flowing into the main road, obstructing public transport and other vehicles.

o   Waitrose car park likewise is often full with a couple queuing and some obstruction of passing traffic. 

o   The side roads with free bays or no controls are also heavily parked - notably The Avenue, The Grove and South Drive. Other roads with no charges are also well parked.

9.     Continued reduction of parking provision will continue to strangle local businesses, harm the environment through increase pollution and over-burden our straining local infrastructure. This is not the first time that I’ve written to the Council or spoken at Planning Committee on this subject!



Objecting to the Purley Skyscraper
27/12/2017 23:06:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura


In the new year the planning inspector will be holding a series of public hearings to investigate the controversial Purley Baptist Church site. Below is my submission, do feel free to send in your views to as soon as possible.

Reasons for objection:

1. Excessive height, out of keeping with the local area

The tallest building at present in Purley is four to five floors. The plan you are adjudicating is for 17-storeys. This proposed scheme is therefore around five times taller than the average building in Purley.

The local character would be change utterly if this scheme was allowed to progress - indeed the next nearest 17-storey building is roughly 2-3 miles further north into Croydon town centre. The building would cast a literal shadow in the local area, and is the main reason why I feel this should be opposed.

2. Density of the development

The scheme exceeds the upper end of the density reference range as specified in the London Plan, when taken as a whole. It exceeds the upper end of the range by 17%, the lower end by 308% and exceeds the mid-point of the range by 82%. The proposed development is denser than the current London Plan allows for in a setting such as this one.

3. Harming local views

One of the attractions of living in the wider Coulsdon area is the wide expanse of park land and green spaces that local residents can enjoy. Farthing Down, further into the south of the borough, has a protected panoramic view as stipulated by the Croydon Local Plan. The Purley Baptist site development would be clearly visible the Downs and impact the protected view this protected panorama. It has been estimated that at least the top 25m of the tower (around eight storeys) would be clearly visible.

4. Construction on a flood risk site

Purley, in particular the area surrounding the Purley Baptist site, has experienced severe flooding over the past decade. The most recent extreme example is from February 2014 when the whole underpass at Purley Cross was completely underwater.

The current design of the building does not mitigate for flooding, taking extra precautions to ensure whomever lives in the building are protected. The high risk of flooding is noted in the Croydon Local Plan and construction on such sites is to be 'avoided' according to the NPPF.

5. Not enough parking (and other local infrastructure)

As one of the local councillors, by far and away our biggest complaint from residents comes not from the principle of construction, but from the lack of due care given to planning for the impact an increase in residents will have on local infrastructure.

Local roads are already severely congested, but this is exacerbated by developments approved without commensurate off-street parking. For the 220 flats proposed in the development there are only 37 parking spaces provided. Croydon's current administration bizarrely never usually sees this to be a problem in granting applications, but even they (in their planning report for the Planning Committee) admits that the development needs at least 165 car spaces (paragraph 8.149).

Section 8.147 of the same report recommends that future residents of the scheme are excluded from residents parking permits. This will cause parking chaos on other roads, forcing residents to compete for the same level of space in the surrounding area. The argument that residents choosing to move there will forgo their vehicles due to the proximity of Purley train station is fallacious - every one of those new residents will think that other new residents will either not own or not bring their cars, and the congestion will continue to increase.

Local opinion

The local residents are passionate defenders of the integrity of their community. It is an area that is well-integrated into the fabric of Croydon, with main transport routes and major road intersections meeting in the area. It is for this reason and in this context that the overwhelming opposition of residents to this scheme should be considered.

So far the GLA member; the Member of Parliament; at least 15 of my fellow local councillors and seven residents' associations are opposed to this development. You will hopefully be aware that when the application was first heard in the Council it received 616 formal responses, with 551 of those objecting - one of the highest reactions for any application in the history of the borough.



Labour hypocrisy over 'support' for local taxis
20/12/2017 09:03:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura


A few week's back I asked Labour Cllr Mark Watson about his views on local taxis and the huge increase in tax being forced on them by the Labour Mayor of London.

He replied saying that he 'believe[d] mini cabs should be regulated' and they 'should pay their fair share of tax'.
On 15th September, Transport for London's Finance Committee issued a report on taxi license fees revealing the following licensee tax increases (see left).

Transport for London is controlled by the Labour Mayor of London. As such, I asked him if he beleived this massive increase in tax on local small businesses is 'fair' as he stated previously. To this he answered: yes.
He told me earlier that he has 'met with local mini cab companies and continue[s] to support local, Croydon based companies'. I asked him if he will write to the Mayor of London opposing a nearly 1000% increase in tax for a mini cab company with just 51 cars. He said 'no'.

​The hypocrisy is simply astounding.



Gas works distruption
20/12/2017 08:55:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura


SGN have a large project to replace the gas main and services in the following roads:

  • Ridgemount Avenue
  • Woodlands Grove
  • Portnalls Rise
  • Vincent Road
  • Sherwood Road
  • Coniston Road.

The works will commence in Ridgemount Avenue on 08/01 until approx. March. The road will be made one way for the duration. The works will then continue in the order above.



What happens if the evidence changes on 20mph zones?
18/12/2017 15:53:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura


I asked Labour's Councillor Stuart King the following question:

"In The Times today (18th December 2017), it was reported that Bath and North Somerset Council have recorded more deaths in new 20mph zones in Somerset than before the speed limit was lowered.

The Council brought in the 13 new zones a year ago say that even though the rate of people being killed or seriously injured had gone up in seven zones, that they cannot afford the expense of reversing it - though they would like to.

I would like to ask:

1. The council said that the findings were part of a national trend and suggested that people were “less diligent” when walking and crossing roads in the zones because they thought they were safer. Do you agree?

2. Residents in the authority have accused the council of not being prepared to find the money to stop people being hurt or killed. Do you feel they should find the money to follow their ambition to reverse the service and save lives?

3. Can you please outline in each zone in Croydon the number of people hurt or killed before and since the 20mph policy was implemented?

4. Can you please provide the total figures for those hurt or injured on Croydon's roads before and after the 20mph zones were implemented?

5. On roads where there is speed monitoring in 20mph zones in Croydon, can the Council please detail how many drivers have broken the 20mph speed limit in each zone since it was introduced."

Cllr King replied on 3rd January:

'1. No.
2. This is a matter for Bath & NE Somerset Council.
3. Collision data is collected over a three year cycle. Borough wide data covering the three years (2013/14/15) prior to the introduction of the first area wide 20mph speed limit shows that there were 3253 casualties made up of 3046 slight injuries, 182 serious injuries and 25 fatalities. Collision data since the introduction of the area wide 20mph speed limits is not yet available to provide a comparison
4. See 3 above
5. The number of drivers that have exceeded the 20mph limit is not known, but whilst some motorists may continue to travel above this limit, it is expected that many motorists will reduce their speed, and that over time average speeds will



What's happening with the night-time economy report?
11/12/2017 16:15:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura


In February 2016, I held a public meeting to discuss Croydon's struggling night-time economy which Cllr Mark Watson, Labour's Cabinet Member for the economy, attended. Later that year Cllr Callton Young launched a review into the night-time economy that I was pleased to support. A draft report was created but never finalised and never released. 

It is a year since Cllr Young's much vaunted review, which the Council press release at the time said: “This is an important piece of work that will help shape the licensing of the town and district centres... we want... ideas that will help to paint a full picture of Croydon’s evening and night time economies and deliver sound, practicable recommendations.”

I ask Cllr Watson if he could please outline:

  • What is the status of the review and when will it be published?
  • Why has the review taken so long to be published?
  • Have any of Croydon's night-time economy key stakeholders been appraised of this delay (e.g. external experts who took part; businesses; local police; members of the public etc).
  • Are you happy that it has taken over a year (to date) and such an "important piece of work" in your Cabinet Portfolio has not yet been published?'

26th January 2018

I today received a reply not from Cllr Watson, but from Cllr Fitzsimons:

'Thank you for your question. As it relates to a Scrutiny matter rather than an executive one, I shall respond rather than the Cabinet Member it was addressed to.
I am currently awaiting notice from Councillor Young to agree a date for his Sub-Committee to meet.'

Not only is this question not being answered to whom I addressed it, but it doesn't answer the questions I have. Part of my role as a councillor is to scrutinise the administration, something that oddly the Chair of Scrutiny is here obstructing.

It is also worth knowing that from submission of the question 34 working days has passed. The supposed deadline for receiving a response is three weeks. Cllr Fitzsimons in that time could have easily called his party colleague, Cllr Young, and arranged the date for the next meeting. This does not preclude the Cabinet Member answering my questions.

I requested the question be redirected to Cllr Shahul-Hameed who succeeded Cllr Watson as the relevant Cabinet Member on 26th January. I hope to have an update soon.

1st February 2018

A Council Officer responded to my request for an answer by liasing with Cllr Fitzsimons. He 'requested that your question be revised and directed to the Chair of Scrutiny.' As the Chair of Scrutiny he should no better than to request me revise my choice of question - and the Council Officer should know better than to accept this as an adequate response.

20th February 2018

I have still not received a response, though I'm assured it will be with me by 28th February.



The future location of BoxPark
05/12/2017 16:37:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura


At last night's Council meeting (4th December 2017), a member of the public asked the Council Leader, Labour's Tony Newman, to confirm that he will do all he can to keep BoxPark at its current location by East Croydon station.

In the answer he said that the future of BoxPark was in Croydon, whether on that site or a larger one. I sent him some questions to answer:

1. Is he aware of or has he been privy to any discussions about BoxPark moving from its current site next to East Croydon to an alternative location?

2. If so, could the Leader please detail the content of these discussions including why it is being considered that it might move?

3. When the Leader referred to 'a larger site', could he please detail where in the borough he had in mind?

4. Is the Council involved in or aware of any talks at this stage to find an alternative location for BoxPark? If yes, please detail.

5. At what stage are the discussions about the renewal of the lease for BoxPark, and to what extent are he or Council Officers involved?

6. Would the Leader rather see BoxPark move from its current site, or kept at its current site?

7. Will the Leader use his authority to do all he can to keep BoxPark at its current location?

On 19th December he replied:

There has been no discussion of Boxpark Croydon moving from East Croydon to an alternative location. Boxpark has a 5 year lease with Stanhope Schroders, the site owner, with an option to extend the lease for a further 2 years; lease negotiations take place between Boxpark Croydon and Stanhope Schroders – the council has no involvement in this commercial transaction. The station approach at East Croydon has been transformed by Boxpark, activating a very underused and tired space, and until the Stanhope Schroeder development phasing requires the Boxpark site I hope that Boxpark remains in its current location.

There is no specific “larger site” that has been identified for Boxpark Croydon; as and when required the council will support Boxpark to identify alternative Croydon sites. Boxpark has had a significant and positive impact on the town centre providing an alternative and complementary offer to existing restaurants, clubs and bars both during the day and at weekend; we are committed to working with Boxpark and tenants to ensure continued success.



See older blog posts


 Read our newsletter
Download our latest newsletter:
May 2014 - Local Election special
 Contact Us
Please do contact us with any issues or concerns you may have. We answer all our constituents' correspondence and value your comments. If you want your concern addressed by your local team, please follow the link above.
020 8660 0491
 Older Blog Posts
A question about Mud - and the viability of businesses in BoxPark
Aldi parking - just not good enough
Letter to Lloyds Bank
New lifts and bridge to be installed at Coulsdon South station
South Drive petition success - eventually!
Croydon joins Haringey in opposing Labour Party policy
Question on housing policy
Question on the recent tram strike
Speech on the Council's shocking Ofsted review
Accessibility improvements for Coulsdon South station
Objection to huge Sutton green belt construction project
Who is your Croydon Hero?
Questions on Knife Crime in Schools
Helping our Furry Friends!
Car park costs and spiralling rents killing small businesses
Labour failing affordable housing pledge
Croydon Labour refuse to support London National Park City campaign
Questions of Fire Safety in Council-owned blocks
Favouritism for Labour HQ repeat fly-postering?
Labour steals voice of Croydon voluntary sector
13 businesses stop street trading due to Labour's Sunshine Tax
Fire safety in Croydon Council buildings
Meeting HH Pope Tawadros II
Manchester and security in Croydon
The Pope visits Coulsdon!
Planned Lion Green Road parking spaces upped to 80, but falls short of demand
Permits at tip needed from April 2017
Supporting Purley Youth Project
Fairfield Halls planning concerns
Lion Green Road to be slashed to 50 parking spaces
© Copyright Croydon Conservatives 2000 - 2018