Bromley council are threatening legal action against Croydon council in the latest move in the blocked-off roads row.
Their move comes as:
- A residents group made up of people living in Milestone Road, Patterson Road, Cintra Park and Belvedere Road (all LB Bromley)are planning a petition because of the impact Croydon council’s road closures have had on their lives;
- Google Maps are now telling drivers to AVOID Anerley Hill and use the above-named roads instead;
- Supporters of a Crystal Palace Low Traffic Network want the area bounded by Anerley Road, Anerley Hill, Church Road, South Norwood Hill, South Norwood High Street and the railway line which abuts Maberley Road to become ‘residents only’ to traffic entering it.
Bromley council are citing section 121B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984) which states that no London borough council shall exercise any power under the Act in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect, a road in another London borough unless certain subsections of the Act have been satisfied. (The whole of section 121B can be found at the end of this article – Ed).
The move comes as Bromley council leader Cllr Colin Smith, in one item of correspondence to a resident, says they are “looking collegiately to Croydon colleagues to remove the recently installed street paraphernalia voluntarily.
“If not, Bromley will unfortunately be seeking its removal forcefully given that we believe Croydon have flouted section 121B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984).
“Like you, we very much hope that we all do this the easy way, learn quickly from this experience and move on.”
In a second item of correspondence published in the MPC Triangle group’s newsletter Cllr Smith says: “I would like every affected Bromley council resident to know that you enjoy the council’s 100 per cent undiluted support in your campaign to have Croydon’s recent actions reversed.
“How ever well intended their objectives might have been they have neither been thought through properly or consulted upon and that simply isn’t acceptable.
“I can confirm that Bromley has this week initiated the first tentative legal steps to try and have the barriers removed by order if common sense isn’t deployed and their street paraphernalia removed swiftly – as we would clearly far prefer.”
- Cllr Smith, asked about Cllr Angela Wilkins plans to arrange a meeting between Bromley and Croydon on the blocked-off roads issue, told News From Crystal Palace:
“I respectfully can’t see there’s anything much to talk about until such time as Croydon reverse their recently imposed measures, given the abject misery and inconvenience they are causing to Bromley residents on a daily basis and the self-evident need to rectify the situation urgently.
“Once it’s fixed, then of course.”
“LIVING ON A BOROUGH BORDER SHOULDN’T MEAN LIVING IN HELL” – Labour opposition leader
The MPC Collective’s newsletter also quotes Cllr Angela Wilkins, a Crystal Palace ward councillor, saying: “Whatever your view of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods this scheme has brought nothing but chaos and increased risk to Bromley residents, which was completely predictable.
“LB Croydon should have properly consulted us and produced proposals that don’t just dump all of their displaced traffic on Bromley doorsteps.
“I don’t care what the party political affiliations of councils are on this issue. “Both have a duty of care to their residents.
“Get it sorted guys because we simply can’t tolerate this any longer. “Living on a borough border shouldn’t mean living in hell.”
[F1121B London borough council exercising powers so as to affect another traffic authority’s roads.
(1)No London borough council shall exercise any power under this Act in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect,—
unless the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) below have been satisfied.
(2)The first requirement is that the council has given notice of the proposal to exercise the power in the way in question—
(a) to Transport for London; and
(b) in a case where the road concerned is in another London borough, to the council for that borough.
(3)The second requirement is that—
(a) the proposal has been approved [F4(i) in the case of a GLA road, by Transport for London;
(ii) in the case of a strategic road, by Transport for London and, where the road concerned is in another London borough, the council for that borough;
(iii)in the case of a road within subsection (1)(b), by the London borough council concerned; or]
(b) the period of one month beginning with the date on which Transport for London and, where applicable, the council received notice of the proposal has expired without Transport for London or the council having objected to the proposal; or
(c) any objection made by Transport for London or the council has been withdrawn; or
(d) where an objection has been made by Transport for London or a London borough council and not withdrawn, the Greater London Authority has given its consent to the proposal after consideration of the objection.
F5(3A)References in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (3) to objections are to objections made by a person who, in the circumstances, has the power to give an approval under paragraph (a) of that subsection.]
(4)Before deciding whether to give any consent for the purposes of subsection (3)(d) above, the Greater London Authority may cause a public inquiry to be held.
(5)If Transport for London has reason to believe—
(a)that a London borough council is proposing to exercise a power under this Act in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect,
[F6(i)a GLA road,
(ii)a strategic road, or
(iii)a road in another London borough other than a GLA road or strategic road, and]
(b)that notice of the proposal is required to be, but has not been, given in accordance with subsection (2) above,
Transport for London may give a direction to the council requiring it not to proceed with the proposal until the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) above have been satisfied.
(6)If a London borough council exercises any power in contravention of this section, Transport for London may take such steps as it considers appropriate to reverse or modify the effect of the exercise of that power.
(7)For the purposes of subsection (6) above, Transport for London shall have power to exercise any power of the London borough council on behalf of that council.
(8)Any reasonable expenses incurred by Transport for London in taking any steps under subsection (6) above shall be recoverable by Transport for London from the London borough council concerned as a civil debt.
(9)The Mayor of London may issue a direction dispensing with the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) above in such circumstances as may be specified in the direction.
(10)A direction under subsection (9) above may, in particular, dispense with those requirements as respects—
(a)all or any of the London borough councils;
(b)all or any of the GLA roads [F7or strategic roads] ;
(c)all or any of the roads which are [F8not GLA roads, strategic roads or] trunk roads;
(d)the exercise of such powers as may be specified in the direction in such manner or circumstances as may be so specified.
(11)Any direction under subsection (9) above may be varied or revoked by a further direction under that subsection.
(12)For the purposes of this section—
(a)the City of London shall be treated as if it were a London borough;
(b)the Common Council shall be treated as if it were the council for a London borough; and
(c)the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple shall be treated as forming part of the City.
[F9(13)In this section “ strategic road ” has the meaning given by section 60 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. ]]
Modifications etc. (not altering text)