Concern scrapping Bromley lollipop ladies will risk children's lives

Lollipop lady Pearl Adams with protesters outside Hayes Primary School

Lollipop lady Pearl Adams with protesters outside Hayes Primary School

First published in News by

PARENTS and lollipop ladies say the planned scrapping of school crossing patrols will “put children’s lives at risk”.

Last month Bromley Council announced plans to axe school crossing patrols from April next year to save £233,000 as part of a long list of cost cutting measures.

This has caused outrage among parents and lollipop ladies, with more than 50 signing a petition outside Hayes Primary School on Friday.

Lynn Martin, who has two children aged seven and five at the school, said: “Taking away the lollipop ladies will put children’s lives at risk.”

The 38-year-old, who lives in Mosslea Road in Bromley, added: “I do not want a child to be killed before the council realises it is an essential part of getting children to school safely.”

Pearl Adams, aged 59, who is the lollipop lady at the school, said: “I’m also a pair of eyes looking out for other dangers to the children besides crossing the road.”

Adele Titford, whose six-year-old daughter attends St Mark’s Primary School in Bromley, says the savings the council makes on lollipop lady salaries will be lost on paying them unemployment benefits.

Mrs Titford, aged 48, of Hayesford Park in Bromley, said: “I have written to the council to ask whether £233,000 is the price of a child’s life.”

Related links

Executive councillor for environment Colin Smith says the decision to axe crossing patrols was “extremely painful” but necessary due to “harsh economic circumstances”.

He said the council will work with schools, parent and teacher associations and the community to look at other ways to provide crossing assistance.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:02pm Tue 1 Feb 11

goldenbroomboy says...

I don't think that £233 K is a huge sum to be spending upon kid's safety across an entire borough. Has it not occured to Cllr Smith that whilst there is far more traffic then when he & I were children, the roads are no wider?
I don't think that £233 K is a huge sum to be spending upon kid's safety across an entire borough. Has it not occured to Cllr Smith that whilst there is far more traffic then when he & I were children, the roads are no wider? goldenbroomboy
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Tue 1 Feb 11

GeoffR says...

So Cllr Smith - how much did your new windows in your office cost?

Now tell me how "extremely painful" this decision is, especially when, and I use the word when wisely, a child gets knocked down by YOUR decision.

As long as you are comfy, and there is no draft in your office, that's OK.
So Cllr Smith - how much did your new windows in your office cost? Now tell me how "extremely painful" this decision is, especially when, and I use the word when wisely, a child gets knocked down by YOUR decision. As long as you are comfy, and there is no draft in your office, that's OK. GeoffR
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Tue 1 Feb 11

beanie59 says...

I cannot believe that the money saved by axing this much used service will make that big a difference to the overall budget savings. "lollipop" persons play a vital role in child safety, parents who decide to let their children go to school on their own know they can be seen safely across the roads, without this there will be more accidents. my children are grown up now but I would gladly pay and extra penny on my council tax to fund retaining this service, bromley whenever cuts have to be made you target the young and the old both vulnerable groups, get a grip on what your residents really want!
I cannot believe that the money saved by axing this much used service will make that big a difference to the overall budget savings. "lollipop" persons play a vital role in child safety, parents who decide to let their children go to school on their own know they can be seen safely across the roads, without this there will be more accidents. my children are grown up now but I would gladly pay and extra penny on my council tax to fund retaining this service, bromley whenever cuts have to be made you target the young and the old both vulnerable groups, get a grip on what your residents really want! beanie59
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Tue 1 Feb 11

jaydon says...

beanie59 wrote:
I cannot believe that the money saved by axing this much used service will make that big a difference to the overall budget savings. "lollipop" persons play a vital role in child safety, parents who decide to let their children go to school on their own know they can be seen safely across the roads, without this there will be more accidents. my children are grown up now but I would gladly pay and extra penny on my council tax to fund retaining this service, bromley whenever cuts have to be made you target the young and the old both vulnerable groups, get a grip on what your residents really want!
Well said beanie59, the headteacher of our local primary school has spent months promoting walking to school initiatives, for what? Whats more our lollipop lady estimates she will £10 worse off a month on the dole!

They provide essential safety for our children when crossing busy roads, and are the eyes and hears to other aspects of child safety. There have been a number of incidents recently of strangers trying to talk to children on their way home from school.

We were sold the idea of this ridiculous recycling scheme currently running on the understanding the council would save thousands of pounds on landfill! What's happened to all the money we will save from that scheme? Spent on double glazing and the ridiculous salaries that are paid to the top tier of council management I suspect.

I fail to see how a wealthy borough like Bromley cannot find the resources when other borough's like Lewisham for example, who have a far higher proportion of residents on income support and social housing manage.Quite simply Bromley council you are failing us!
[quote][p][bold]beanie59[/bold] wrote: I cannot believe that the money saved by axing this much used service will make that big a difference to the overall budget savings. "lollipop" persons play a vital role in child safety, parents who decide to let their children go to school on their own know they can be seen safely across the roads, without this there will be more accidents. my children are grown up now but I would gladly pay and extra penny on my council tax to fund retaining this service, bromley whenever cuts have to be made you target the young and the old both vulnerable groups, get a grip on what your residents really want![/p][/quote]Well said beanie59, the headteacher of our local primary school has spent months promoting walking to school initiatives, for what? Whats more our lollipop lady estimates she will £10 worse off a month on the dole! They provide essential safety for our children when crossing busy roads, and are the eyes and hears to other aspects of child safety. There have been a number of incidents recently of strangers trying to talk to children on their way home from school. We were sold the idea of this ridiculous recycling scheme currently running on the understanding the council would save thousands of pounds on landfill! What's happened to all the money we will save from that scheme? Spent on double glazing and the ridiculous salaries that are paid to the top tier of council management I suspect. I fail to see how a wealthy borough like Bromley cannot find the resources when other borough's like Lewisham for example, who have a far higher proportion of residents on income support and social housing manage.Quite simply Bromley council you are failing us! jaydon
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Tue 1 Feb 11

porkpie says...

How about teaching the kids to cross safely.... Just a thought.
How about teaching the kids to cross safely.... Just a thought. porkpie
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Tue 1 Feb 11

HayesMum says...

porkpie wrote:
How about teaching the kids to cross safely.... Just a thought.
you can teach a kid to cross safely as much as you like but it doesn't stop morons not knowing how to drive.
Quite often there are drivers angry at being stopped by Pearl and will either speed up upon seeing her 'magic lollipop' or will stop with their bumpers touching her trousers.
I know my road safety thanks but still have to take my life in my hands crossing the road there when she's not on duty.
[quote][p][bold]porkpie[/bold] wrote: How about teaching the kids to cross safely.... Just a thought.[/p][/quote]you can teach a kid to cross safely as much as you like but it doesn't stop morons not knowing how to drive. Quite often there are drivers angry at being stopped by Pearl and will either speed up upon seeing her 'magic lollipop' or will stop with their bumpers touching her trousers. I know my road safety thanks but still have to take my life in my hands crossing the road there when she's not on duty. HayesMum
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Tue 1 Feb 11

mr2wheels100 says...

Totally agree, how about the parents take their own kids to school and accept responsibility for them.
As for the comments about the car drivers, how about if the kids stay off the roads and use the crossings and pavements, and us motorists won't drive on the pavement.
Maybe then we will start to do away with the nanny state and take responsibility for our actions, wether that be crossing the road or having kids.
Totally agree, how about the parents take their own kids to school and accept responsibility for them. As for the comments about the car drivers, how about if the kids stay off the roads and use the crossings and pavements, and us motorists won't drive on the pavement. Maybe then we will start to do away with the nanny state and take responsibility for our actions, wether that be crossing the road or having kids. mr2wheels100
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Tue 1 Feb 11

jaydon says...

To top it all, the council are still advertising for vacancies!

School Crossing Patrol Vacancies

Employer:London Borough of Bromley | A - General

Reference:SCP

Published:Fri 12/11/2010 08:00 AM

Closing date:Sat 26/03/2011 17:00 PM
A - GeneralLondon Borough of Bromleylogo image

* Bromley, Greater London

Working pattern:Flexible Hours, Part Time, Temporary position

Hours:2 x 1 hour shifts per day (8am - 9am and 3.00pm - 4.00pm)

Salary:£3,480 pa. term time only.

CRB check:Enhanced

Location:Vinci Park Services Tel:0208 464 1106
Incompetence, says it all!
To top it all, the council are still advertising for vacancies! School Crossing Patrol Vacancies Employer:London Borough of Bromley | A - General Reference:SCP Published:Fri 12/11/2010 08:00 AM Closing date:Sat 26/03/2011 17:00 PM A - GeneralLondon Borough of Bromleylogo image * Bromley, Greater London Working pattern:Flexible Hours, Part Time, Temporary position Hours:2 x 1 hour shifts per day (8am - 9am and 3.00pm - 4.00pm) Salary:£3,480 pa. term time only. CRB check:Enhanced Location:Vinci Park Services Tel:0208 464 1106 Incompetence, says it all! jaydon
  • Score: 0

7:47pm Tue 1 Feb 11

Cllr Colin Smith says...

jaydon wrote:
To top it all, the council are still advertising for vacancies! School Crossing Patrol Vacancies Employer:London Borough of Bromley | A - General Reference:SCP Published:Fri 12/11/2010 08:00 AM Closing date:Sat 26/03/2011 17:00 PM A - GeneralLondon Borough of Bromleylogo image * Bromley, Greater London Working pattern:Flexible Hours, Part Time, Temporary position Hours:2 x 1 hour shifts per day (8am - 9am and 3.00pm - 4.00pm) Salary:£3,480 pa. term time only. CRB check:Enhanced Location:Vinci Park Services Tel:0208 464 1106 Incompetence, says it all!
If you bother to read the article it states quite clearly that this is a budget option for "April next year" ie council year 2012/13, likewise that we will be working with schools, PTAs and the community to deliver the service in another form.

For some reason you now appear to want to start 'cutting' the service without any pre-planning and forethought in 2011/12 by not filling vacant posts.

Not immediately clear about the consistency of your thought process ?
[quote][p][bold]jaydon[/bold] wrote: To top it all, the council are still advertising for vacancies! School Crossing Patrol Vacancies Employer:London Borough of Bromley | A - General Reference:SCP Published:Fri 12/11/2010 08:00 AM Closing date:Sat 26/03/2011 17:00 PM A - GeneralLondon Borough of Bromleylogo image * Bromley, Greater London Working pattern:Flexible Hours, Part Time, Temporary position Hours:2 x 1 hour shifts per day (8am - 9am and 3.00pm - 4.00pm) Salary:£3,480 pa. term time only. CRB check:Enhanced Location:Vinci Park Services Tel:0208 464 1106 Incompetence, says it all![/p][/quote]If you bother to read the article it states quite clearly that this is a budget option for "April next year" ie council year 2012/13, likewise that we will be working with schools, PTAs and the community to deliver the service in another form. For some reason you now appear to want to start 'cutting' the service without any pre-planning and forethought in 2011/12 by not filling vacant posts. Not immediately clear about the consistency of your thought process ? Cllr Colin Smith
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Tue 1 Feb 11

HayesMum says...

mr2wheels100 wrote:
Totally agree, how about the parents take their own kids to school and accept responsibility for them.
As for the comments about the car drivers, how about if the kids stay off the roads and use the crossings and pavements, and us motorists won't drive on the pavement.
Maybe then we will start to do away with the nanny state and take responsibility for our actions, wether that be crossing the road or having kids.
what are you talking about ? I think you're getting this confused with other stories/ you're own road rage. I'm not saying people drive on the pavement.
I take full responsibility for my kids and I walk them to school every day it's a primary school this affects so kids from four and a half up not just older kids walking alone.
When she's not there, it's dangerous trying to cross this busy road even for me, a grown, sizeable/easy to spot woman that learnt how to cross a road safely a long time ago let alone small kids over 10 allowed to walk to school alone like I was as a kid.
It's not nanny state anything it's a busy road with non-stop traffic at peak times.
We're trying to get kids to use a crossing like you suggest but the 'crossing' (pearl and a stick) is threatened with being taken away.
[quote][p][bold]mr2wheels100[/bold] wrote: Totally agree, how about the parents take their own kids to school and accept responsibility for them. As for the comments about the car drivers, how about if the kids stay off the roads and use the crossings and pavements, and us motorists won't drive on the pavement. Maybe then we will start to do away with the nanny state and take responsibility for our actions, wether that be crossing the road or having kids.[/p][/quote]what are you talking about ? I think you're getting this confused with other stories/ you're own road rage. I'm not saying people drive on the pavement. I take full responsibility for my kids and I walk them to school every day it's a primary school this affects so kids from four and a half up not just older kids walking alone. When she's not there, it's dangerous trying to cross this busy road even for me, a grown, sizeable/easy to spot woman that learnt how to cross a road safely a long time ago let alone small kids over 10 allowed to walk to school alone like I was as a kid. It's not nanny state anything it's a busy road with non-stop traffic at peak times. We're trying to get kids to use a crossing like you suggest but the 'crossing' (pearl and a stick) is threatened with being taken away. HayesMum
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Tue 1 Feb 11

ShirleyW says...

We rely on Pearl, our wonderful Lollipop lady for safety. There are NO proper crossings down Hayes Lane that are safe for children - no lights or zebra crossings. When you think there are three schools within a few hundred metres in Hayes (Hayes Primary, Hayes Secondary and Baston) it is disgusting that the Council is planning to axe our Lollipop Lady. I bet they won't fork out and paint a zebra or instal lights or any traffic calming measures. Hayes Lane is a terrible road to cross at the best of times.
We rely on Pearl, our wonderful Lollipop lady for safety. There are NO proper crossings down Hayes Lane that are safe for children - no lights or zebra crossings. When you think there are three schools within a few hundred metres in Hayes (Hayes Primary, Hayes Secondary and Baston) it is disgusting that the Council is planning to axe our Lollipop Lady. I bet they won't fork out and paint a zebra or instal lights or any traffic calming measures. Hayes Lane is a terrible road to cross at the best of times. ShirleyW
  • Score: 0

10:56am Wed 2 Feb 11

Harry Baggins says...

All Councils need to cut the "Politically Correct" "MINORITY" projects from the budget and leave those alone that will effect the MAJORITY..End of!
All Councils need to cut the "Politically Correct" "MINORITY" projects from the budget and leave those alone that will effect the MAJORITY..End of! Harry Baggins
  • Score: 0

11:29am Wed 2 Feb 11

GeoffR says...

Harry Baggins wrote:
All Councils need to cut the "Politically Correct" "MINORITY" projects from the budget and leave those alone that will effect the MAJORITY..End of!
Great Rhetoric. Give some example please!
[quote][p][bold]Harry Baggins[/bold] wrote: All Councils need to cut the "Politically Correct" "MINORITY" projects from the budget and leave those alone that will effect the MAJORITY..End of![/p][/quote]Great Rhetoric. Give some example please! GeoffR
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Wed 2 Feb 11

jaydon says...

Cllr Colin Smith wrote:
jaydon wrote: To top it all, the council are still advertising for vacancies! School Crossing Patrol Vacancies Employer:London Borough of Bromley | A - General Reference:SCP Published:Fri 12/11/2010 08:00 AM Closing date:Sat 26/03/2011 17:00 PM A - GeneralLondon Borough of Bromleylogo image * Bromley, Greater London Working pattern:Flexible Hours, Part Time, Temporary position Hours:2 x 1 hour shifts per day (8am - 9am and 3.00pm - 4.00pm) Salary:£3,480 pa. term time only. CRB check:Enhanced Location:Vinci Park Services Tel:0208 464 1106 Incompetence, says it all!
If you bother to read the article it states quite clearly that this is a budget option for "April next year" ie council year 2012/13, likewise that we will be working with schools, PTAs and the community to deliver the service in another form. For some reason you now appear to want to start 'cutting' the service without any pre-planning and forethought in 2011/12 by not filling vacant posts. Not immediately clear about the consistency of your thought process ?
Not clear about your thought process or your attitude per se!

Remember, you are installed to serve us, the public.

I wonder how much of a pay cut you and your colleagues are prepared to take before you cut precious services like this, which involve the safety of our children, or are you banking on people's good will to assist you on a voluntary basis like the anti graffiti group I used to run, or friends of Hayes parks /common.

What exactly am I getting in return for the £2,200 I pay each year in council tax!
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Colin Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jaydon[/bold] wrote: To top it all, the council are still advertising for vacancies! School Crossing Patrol Vacancies Employer:London Borough of Bromley | A - General Reference:SCP Published:Fri 12/11/2010 08:00 AM Closing date:Sat 26/03/2011 17:00 PM A - GeneralLondon Borough of Bromleylogo image * Bromley, Greater London Working pattern:Flexible Hours, Part Time, Temporary position Hours:2 x 1 hour shifts per day (8am - 9am and 3.00pm - 4.00pm) Salary:£3,480 pa. term time only. CRB check:Enhanced Location:Vinci Park Services Tel:0208 464 1106 Incompetence, says it all![/p][/quote]If you bother to read the article it states quite clearly that this is a budget option for "April next year" ie council year 2012/13, likewise that we will be working with schools, PTAs and the community to deliver the service in another form. For some reason you now appear to want to start 'cutting' the service without any pre-planning and forethought in 2011/12 by not filling vacant posts. Not immediately clear about the consistency of your thought process ?[/p][/quote]Not clear about your thought process or your attitude per se! Remember, you are installed to serve us, the public. I wonder how much of a pay cut you and your colleagues are prepared to take before you cut precious services like this, which involve the safety of our children, or are you banking on people's good will to assist you on a voluntary basis like the anti graffiti group I used to run, or friends of Hayes parks /common. What exactly am I getting in return for the £2,200 I pay each year in council tax! jaydon
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Wed 2 Feb 11

Gypo says...

"What exactly am I getting in return for the £2,200 I pay each year in council tax!"

Let me tell you what we all get, Smiff and his cronies sitting in their ivory towers, new windows and all, with their fat noses in the trough.
"What exactly am I getting in return for the £2,200 I pay each year in council tax!" Let me tell you what we all get, Smiff and his cronies sitting in their ivory towers, new windows and all, with their fat noses in the trough. Gypo
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Wed 2 Feb 11

goldenbroomboy says...

Harry Baggins wrote:
All Councils need to cut the "Politically Correct" "MINORITY" projects from the budget and leave those alone that will effect the MAJORITY..End of!
If we were living in Lewisham twenty years ago, when the then council proudly boasted about holding social evenings for disabled Chinese Lesbians, then I would agree. But this is Bromley in 2011, and one thing that Bromley Council cannot be accused of IMHO is being "politically correct". I can think of many grumbles about the current Bromley Council, but that is not one of them.
[quote][p][bold]Harry Baggins[/bold] wrote: All Councils need to cut the "Politically Correct" "MINORITY" projects from the budget and leave those alone that will effect the MAJORITY..End of![/p][/quote]If we were living in Lewisham twenty years ago, when the then council proudly boasted about holding social evenings for disabled Chinese Lesbians, then I would agree. But this is Bromley in 2011, and one thing that Bromley Council cannot be accused of IMHO is being "politically correct". I can think of many grumbles about the current Bromley Council, but that is not one of them. goldenbroomboy
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Wed 2 Feb 11

Cllr Colin Smith says...

jaydon wrote:
Cllr Colin Smith wrote:
jaydon wrote: To top it all, the council are still advertising for vacancies! School Crossing Patrol Vacancies Employer:London Borough of Bromley | A - General Reference:SCP Published:Fri 12/11/2010 08:00 AM Closing date:Sat 26/03/2011 17:00 PM A - GeneralLondon Borough of Bromleylogo image * Bromley, Greater London Working pattern:Flexible Hours, Part Time, Temporary position Hours:2 x 1 hour shifts per day (8am - 9am and 3.00pm - 4.00pm) Salary:£3,480 pa. term time only. CRB check:Enhanced Location:Vinci Park Services Tel:0208 464 1106 Incompetence, says it all!
If you bother to read the article it states quite clearly that this is a budget option for "April next year" ie council year 2012/13, likewise that we will be working with schools, PTAs and the community to deliver the service in another form. For some reason you now appear to want to start 'cutting' the service without any pre-planning and forethought in 2011/12 by not filling vacant posts. Not immediately clear about the consistency of your thought process ?
Not clear about your thought process or your attitude per se! Remember, you are installed to serve us, the public. I wonder how much of a pay cut you and your colleagues are prepared to take before you cut precious services like this, which involve the safety of our children, or are you banking on people's good will to assist you on a voluntary basis like the anti graffiti group I used to run, or friends of Hayes parks /common. What exactly am I getting in return for the £2,200 I pay each year in council tax!
Regardingly Councillors pay, everyone will quite right have their own view but I reckon I put in 70/80 hours a week for £32k a year and earn my keep.

We've had no rises since 2009 and are all but certain to declare a freeze for the rest of this Council (2014) when the budget is set in a few weeks time.

Five years inflation probably means that going to be about a 20% cut.

As an aside, some of us have also voted down very large pay rise recomendations on three occasions since 2003 with could have led to a numbers of us each trousering an extra £100k over the period had we chosen to take them.
[quote][p][bold]jaydon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr Colin Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jaydon[/bold] wrote: To top it all, the council are still advertising for vacancies! School Crossing Patrol Vacancies Employer:London Borough of Bromley | A - General Reference:SCP Published:Fri 12/11/2010 08:00 AM Closing date:Sat 26/03/2011 17:00 PM A - GeneralLondon Borough of Bromleylogo image * Bromley, Greater London Working pattern:Flexible Hours, Part Time, Temporary position Hours:2 x 1 hour shifts per day (8am - 9am and 3.00pm - 4.00pm) Salary:£3,480 pa. term time only. CRB check:Enhanced Location:Vinci Park Services Tel:0208 464 1106 Incompetence, says it all![/p][/quote]If you bother to read the article it states quite clearly that this is a budget option for "April next year" ie council year 2012/13, likewise that we will be working with schools, PTAs and the community to deliver the service in another form. For some reason you now appear to want to start 'cutting' the service without any pre-planning and forethought in 2011/12 by not filling vacant posts. Not immediately clear about the consistency of your thought process ?[/p][/quote]Not clear about your thought process or your attitude per se! Remember, you are installed to serve us, the public. I wonder how much of a pay cut you and your colleagues are prepared to take before you cut precious services like this, which involve the safety of our children, or are you banking on people's good will to assist you on a voluntary basis like the anti graffiti group I used to run, or friends of Hayes parks /common. What exactly am I getting in return for the £2,200 I pay each year in council tax![/p][/quote]Regardingly Councillors pay, everyone will quite right have their own view but I reckon I put in 70/80 hours a week for £32k a year and earn my keep. We've had no rises since 2009 and are all but certain to declare a freeze for the rest of this Council (2014) when the budget is set in a few weeks time. Five years inflation probably means that going to be about a 20% cut. As an aside, some of us have also voted down very large pay rise recomendations on three occasions since 2003 with could have led to a numbers of us each trousering an extra £100k over the period had we chosen to take them. Cllr Colin Smith
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Wed 2 Feb 11

StayFrosty says...

Sigh. I thought this story was going to be about lollipop ladies fighting each other in a turf war with innocent children caught in the crossfire. It wasn't. It's about cuts. I'm bored of cuts. Where are the warring lollipop ladies?
Sigh. I thought this story was going to be about lollipop ladies fighting each other in a turf war with innocent children caught in the crossfire. It wasn't. It's about cuts. I'm bored of cuts. Where are the warring lollipop ladies? StayFrosty
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Wed 2 Feb 11

MB says...

Unfortunately, councils in SE London don't seem to take schools into account when they design pedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures. Where I live in Greenwich there seems to be a rat-run past almost every primary school and no attempt is being made to fix this. If the councils did a better job with traffic planning we wouldn't need lollipop ladies anyway.
Unfortunately, councils in SE London don't seem to take schools into account when they design pedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures. Where I live in Greenwich there seems to be a rat-run past almost every primary school and no attempt is being made to fix this. If the councils did a better job with traffic planning we wouldn't need lollipop ladies anyway. MB
  • Score: 0

4:57pm Wed 2 Feb 11

HayesMum says...

The council put in a yellow box junction where Pearl crosses in September last year but came back and removed it within a couple of days 'as it was placed there in error'.
Maybe the cost of errors such as that are why services are being cut in the borough.
The council put in a yellow box junction where Pearl crosses in September last year but came back and removed it within a couple of days 'as it was placed there in error'. Maybe the cost of errors such as that are why services are being cut in the borough. HayesMum
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Wed 2 Feb 11

Tmcd says...

I was just wondering whether the Lollipop person role could be a voluntary role? that way people would still be able to do the job whilst claiming the dole. the only problem then is that the vetting process becomes less rigorous. the council seem to be cutting all our services yet the cost for them still remains the same. we now have a 2 weekly rubbish collection and on at least 2 occassions they have not picked ours up as there was (and i quote form a bin man) "not enough room in the bin" to take ours as it was full of rubbish from the houses before us! Then I have to waste money phoning the council to complain and get it picked up!
I was just wondering whether the Lollipop person role could be a voluntary role? that way people would still be able to do the job whilst claiming the dole. the only problem then is that the vetting process becomes less rigorous. the council seem to be cutting all our services yet the cost for them still remains the same. we now have a 2 weekly rubbish collection and on at least 2 occassions they have not picked ours up as there was (and i quote form a bin man) "not enough room in the bin" to take ours as it was full of rubbish from the houses before us! Then I have to waste money phoning the council to complain and get it picked up! Tmcd
  • Score: 0

5:57am Thu 3 Feb 11

GODUPERE2 says...

I thought it meant that the lollypop ladies were fighting each other. HO HUM .
I thought it meant that the lollypop ladies were fighting each other. HO HUM . GODUPERE2
  • Score: 0

3:16pm Fri 4 Feb 11

CityWorker1 says...

GODUPERE2 wrote:
I thought it meant that the lollypop ladies were fighting each other. HO HUM .
Me too! Thought it was about Lollipop Ladies getting mashed up in turf wars!
[quote][p][bold]GODUPERE2[/bold] wrote: I thought it meant that the lollypop ladies were fighting each other. HO HUM .[/p][/quote]Me too! Thought it was about Lollipop Ladies getting mashed up in turf wars! CityWorker1
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Fri 4 Feb 11

crofton mum says...

I hope Executive Councilor Smith has paid someone a huge sum for a risk assessment of removing these much needed people. Only 18 months ago we had the misfortune of a fataility near our local school and I for one will not be visiting him in prison for the decision he has approved which I understand makes him personally accountable.
I hope Executive Councilor Smith has paid someone a huge sum for a risk assessment of removing these much needed people. Only 18 months ago we had the misfortune of a fataility near our local school and I for one will not be visiting him in prison for the decision he has approved which I understand makes him personally accountable. crofton mum
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Sun 6 Feb 11

Fionam says...

Cllr Smith
The issue concerning Cllr's pay is not at your level; the figures you quote I agree are not excessive. The issue is at the upper level with , for example Doug Patterson earning £185k per year - this is more than the Prime Minister earns yet Mr Patterson refuses to take a pay cut. In addition Bromley Council came out in a BBC poll as the most wasteful council in London having spent around £10m putting new windows ect into the Civic Centre.
Fiona Murphy
Cllr Smith The issue concerning Cllr's pay is not at your level; the figures you quote I agree are not excessive. The issue is at the upper level with , for example Doug Patterson earning £185k per year - this is more than the Prime Minister earns yet Mr Patterson refuses to take a pay cut. In addition Bromley Council came out in a BBC poll as the most wasteful council in London having spent around £10m putting new windows ect into the Civic Centre. Fiona Murphy Fionam
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Sun 6 Feb 11

Cllr Colin Smith says...

You really ought to check your figures Fiona...

Throwing around ridiculous numbers about like £10m about makes you look as if you aren't taking time to do you homework and might even have ulterior motives.

You may care to google the recent story concerning Civic Centre's cyclical repairs and Cllr Reddin's detailed response to it whilst pondering the fact that Bromley has been assessed in the past few years as being one of the best three financially run Councils in the Country.
You really ought to check your figures Fiona... Throwing around ridiculous numbers about like £10m about makes you look as if you aren't taking time to do you homework and might even have ulterior motives. You may care to google the recent story concerning Civic Centre's cyclical repairs and Cllr Reddin's detailed response to it whilst pondering the fact that Bromley has been assessed in the past few years as being one of the best three financially run Councils in the Country. Cllr Colin Smith
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Sun 6 Feb 11

Fionam says...

Cllr Smith
The BBC report Bromley Council as being the most wasteful council in London. Fact. The Daily Mail quote Doug Patterson, head of Bromley Council as refusing to take a pay cut - he earns more than the Prime Minister. Fact.You don't specify who has assessed Bromley Council as being very well run financially so I could not comment on it.
In addition to my previous comments, I presume Bromley Council will soon be looking to save some money within their CYP department as all secondary schools bar one are applying to leave council control and take up Academy status. Fact.
Fiona Murphy
Cllr Smith The BBC report Bromley Council as being the most wasteful council in London. Fact. The Daily Mail quote Doug Patterson, head of Bromley Council as refusing to take a pay cut - he earns more than the Prime Minister. Fact.You don't specify who has assessed Bromley Council as being very well run financially so I could not comment on it. In addition to my previous comments, I presume Bromley Council will soon be looking to save some money within their CYP department as all secondary schools bar one are applying to leave council control and take up Academy status. Fact. Fiona Murphy Fionam
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Sun 6 Feb 11

GODUPERE2 says...

Good Shot Fiona,
Looks like an ace to me.
Can the Cllr get his racket on it or is that Game Set and Match
Good Shot Fiona, Looks like an ace to me. Can the Cllr get his racket on it or is that Game Set and Match GODUPERE2
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Sun 6 Feb 11

Cllr Colin Smith says...

Er no.Wrong, Fact.

If you are refering to this report :

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-lon
don-12151924

It actually reported that Bromley had spent the THIRD most over the period in cyclical maintenance.

You also fail to address that you quoted Bromley as "having spent around £10m putting new windows ect into the Civic Centre."

Which is also completely wrong in fact.

In either event, to confuse cyclical maintenance with "waste" is frankly bizarre.

Do you know when the windows in your house are next going to need replacing? Probably not, but you'll know when the time comes I'm sure and will have to dig deep to replace them. Set aside the fact that responsible maintenance saves money by increasing energy efficiency and reducing fuel bills.

Doug Patterson is an excellent CEX and remains deep down among the lower paid of his peer group in London from the reports I have seen. Still **** good money I cede, but that is the going rate for the job.

My link on the Audit report assessing Bromley as being third best run from a couple of years back follows as soon as I can track it down. In the meanwhile you may care to ponder that Bromley Council is the second worst funded Council per capita in London, sets the lowest Council Tax in outer London, and spends, per capita, less than any other Borourgh in London. I don't know quite how you can attribute 'waste' to that record but I'm sure you will tell us.

It is also a fact that every budget, across all departments budgets remain under intense scrutiny at this time.
Er no.Wrong, Fact. If you are refering to this report : http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lon don-12151924 It actually reported that Bromley had spent the THIRD most over the period in cyclical maintenance. You also fail to address that you quoted Bromley as "having spent around £10m putting new windows ect into the Civic Centre." Which is also completely wrong in fact. In either event, to confuse cyclical maintenance with "waste" is frankly bizarre. Do you know when the windows in your house are next going to need replacing? Probably not, but you'll know when the time comes I'm sure and will have to dig deep to replace them. Set aside the fact that responsible maintenance saves money by increasing energy efficiency and reducing fuel bills. Doug Patterson is an excellent CEX and remains deep down among the lower paid of his peer group in London from the reports I have seen. Still **** good money I cede, but that is the going rate for the job. My link on the Audit report assessing Bromley as being third best run from a couple of years back follows as soon as I can track it down. In the meanwhile you may care to ponder that Bromley Council is the second worst funded Council per capita in London, sets the lowest Council Tax in outer London, and spends, per capita, less than any other Borourgh in London. I don't know quite how you can attribute 'waste' to that record but I'm sure you will tell us. It is also a fact that every budget, across all departments budgets remain under intense scrutiny at this time. Cllr Colin Smith
  • Score: 0

7:28am Mon 7 Feb 11

Fionam says...

Cllr Smith
If you take the time to read the long list of comments on this article many people are questioning the amount Bromley Council spent replacing windows in the civic centre, I guess we all forget Bromley Council knows best.
Doug Patterson is defying the communities minister by refusing to take a pay cut. The government say no council worker should be paid more than the Prime Minister. I do not think that is bizzare, seems reasonable to me.
But then from recent memory Bromley Council do not often agree with their own Government.
Fiona Murphy
Cllr Smith If you take the time to read the long list of comments on this article many people are questioning the amount Bromley Council spent replacing windows in the civic centre, I guess we all forget Bromley Council knows best. Doug Patterson is defying the communities minister by refusing to take a pay cut. The government say no council worker should be paid more than the Prime Minister. I do not think that is bizzare, seems reasonable to me. But then from recent memory Bromley Council do not often agree with their own Government. Fiona Murphy Fionam
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Cllr Colin Smith says...

Credit where it's due, you are trying very hard to change the subject Fiona but no dice I'm afraid.

You said :

"The BBC report Bromley Council as being the most wasteful council in London. Fact."

and

"In addition Bromley Council came out in a BBC poll as the most wasteful council in London having spent around £10m putting new windows ect into the Civic Centre."

Do you accept you were mistaken on both counts please ? If not, would you care to source your assertions.
Credit where it's due, you are trying very hard to change the subject Fiona but no dice I'm afraid. You said : "The BBC report Bromley Council as being the most wasteful council in London. Fact." and "In addition Bromley Council came out in a BBC poll as the most wasteful council in London having spent around £10m putting new windows ect into the Civic Centre." Do you accept you were mistaken on both counts please ? If not, would you care to source your assertions. Cllr Colin Smith
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Fionam says...

Yes you are correct Cllr Smith. Please accept my apologies. According to the BBC Bromley Council are not the most wasteful council. They are the 3rd most wasteful council. Well done.
Found your audit report yet?
If you want to continue this debate why don't you come onto the Beck Town site where someone has started a discussion about Doug Patterson's salary. Someone else has started another discussion about the scrapping of the Lollypop people and these are in addition to the already lively discussions we have going on which I think you are aware of. There is even a discussion proposing a seperate council for Beckenham as Bromley Council are failing so miserably to represent our town.
Yes you are correct Cllr Smith. Please accept my apologies. According to the BBC Bromley Council are not the most wasteful council. They are the 3rd most wasteful council. Well done. Found your audit report yet? If you want to continue this debate why don't you come onto the Beck Town site where someone has started a discussion about Doug Patterson's salary. Someone else has started another discussion about the scrapping of the Lollypop people and these are in addition to the already lively discussions we have going on which I think you are aware of. There is even a discussion proposing a seperate council for Beckenham as Bromley Council are failing so miserably to represent our town. Fionam
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Cllr Colin Smith says...

A little better, but it doesn't say :

"Bromley Council are not the most wasteful council. They are the 3rd most wasteful council."

either does it?

It says :

"Councils in London have spent £29.8m refurbishing their offices over three years - including almost £500,000 upgrading toilets at one authority.

A BBC Freedom of Information request found Richmond Council spent the most, with a bill of £3.41m between 2008 and 2010.

Hounslow spent £2.9m, while Bromley spent £2.7m.

Lewisham, Enfield, Hillingdon, Barking and Dagenham, Islington, Ealing and Barnet councils were among the top 10 spenders.

Responding to the figures, Local Government Minister Bob Neill said the "age of vanity makeovers" was over.

"Whilst I recognise the need for councils to maintain their offices to a reasonable standard local authorities must exercise prudence," he said.

"The age of vanity makeovers and excess in local government is over.

"If councils cut out wasteful spending on refurbishments then they can protect frontline services."

Since 2008, councils have spent more than £29,845,200 on their town halls and civic centres.

Collectively, the councils also approved future refurbishment projects worth more than £2m, taking the total to £31,892,200.

Continue reading the main story
TOP 10 SPENDERS
Richmond - £3.41m
Hounslow - £2.92m
Bromley - £2.70m
Lewisham - £2.38m
Enfield - £2.32m
Hillingdon - £2.26
Barking and Dagenham - £2.11m
Islington - £2.05m
Ealing - £1.88m
Barnet - £1.84m
Richmond Council, which expects to lose up to 300 jobs by 2014 following the government's spending review, said the refurbishment project began in 2005 and it was "not something entered into lightly or on a whim".

Toilet refurbishments figured prominently on several lists of work.

Enfield spent £491,320 on refurbishing toilets, Hounslow £414,000, Kingston £118,527, Hillingdon £75,000, while by contrast Southwark spent £10,000.

For Redbridge, leaking and overflowing bathrooms were a persistent problem with plumbers being called in 51 times in 2008 and 28 times in 2009.

Richmond Council spent £701,000 redoing the ground floor of its civic centre, £728,000 on the first floor and £1,981,000 on the second and third floors.

The council said it aimed to save £35m per annum by 2014.

Barking and Dagenham spent £2m on refurbishing three floors in its Town Hall Councillor Tony Arbour, cabinet member for performance, said: "This has enabled us to move out of office space in Regal House which the council was renting from a private landlord at cost of over £700,000 a year to the local taxpayer."

Hounslow Council spent £424,000 on a conference centre, £150,000 replacing carpets and £15,000 on the council leader's office.

A spokesman said the work "was and will remain absolutely necessary".

"There were not previously enough toilets in the building, coupled with the fact that existing facilities had not been refurbished in some 30 years," he said.

Bromley Council said its planned maintenance work was "higher than the norm because of programmed replacement of windows".

Reupholstering 'priority'

Barking and Dagenham spent more than £2m on refurbishing three floors, while Islington Council spent £1.4m on one assembly hall.

Merton spent £286,000 on furniture while Redbridge paid £85 for altering clocks from GMT to BST in 2009 - described as a maintenance cost.

Hillingdon Council spent £30,000 on reupholstering chairs in the council chambers. Members had identified the work as a "priority" as the poor condition of chairs was a "health and safety risk", the council said.

Hillingdon added it now hoped to reduce spending on future works by £180,000 as some plans had been postponed.

Charlotte Linacre, from the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is appalling that London councils have spent millions of taxpayers' money on refurbishing their own buildings.

"What is even more disgraceful is that this spending was during a recession, when they were pleading poverty."

Bexley, Croydon and Newham councils said they did not spend any money on upgrading their offices.

But a previous BBC investigation found Newham Council spent £18.7m refurbishing its new back office.

Camden Council said it could not provide the required data as the BBC's request exceeded the cost limit."

You continue to confusing essential cyclical maintenance with "waste", but much more from Cllr Reddin on this in last weeks NS.

I am aware I still owe you a link and will get it to you as soon as I can find it.
A little better, but it doesn't say : "Bromley Council are not the most wasteful council. They are the 3rd most wasteful council." either does it? It says : "Councils in London have spent £29.8m refurbishing their offices over three years - including almost £500,000 upgrading toilets at one authority. A BBC Freedom of Information request found Richmond Council spent the most, with a bill of £3.41m between 2008 and 2010. Hounslow spent £2.9m, while Bromley spent £2.7m. Lewisham, Enfield, Hillingdon, Barking and Dagenham, Islington, Ealing and Barnet councils were among the top 10 spenders. Responding to the figures, Local Government Minister Bob Neill said the "age of vanity makeovers" was over. "Whilst I recognise the need for councils to maintain their offices to a reasonable standard local authorities must exercise prudence," he said. "The age of vanity makeovers and excess in local government is over. "If councils cut out wasteful spending on refurbishments then they can protect frontline services." Since 2008, councils have spent more than £29,845,200 on their town halls and civic centres. Collectively, the councils also approved future refurbishment projects worth more than £2m, taking the total to £31,892,200. Continue reading the main story TOP 10 SPENDERS Richmond - £3.41m Hounslow - £2.92m Bromley - £2.70m Lewisham - £2.38m Enfield - £2.32m Hillingdon - £2.26 Barking and Dagenham - £2.11m Islington - £2.05m Ealing - £1.88m Barnet - £1.84m Richmond Council, which expects to lose up to 300 jobs by 2014 following the government's spending review, said the refurbishment project began in 2005 and it was "not something entered into lightly or on a whim". Toilet refurbishments figured prominently on several lists of work. Enfield spent £491,320 on refurbishing toilets, Hounslow £414,000, Kingston £118,527, Hillingdon £75,000, while by contrast Southwark spent £10,000. For Redbridge, leaking and overflowing bathrooms were a persistent problem with plumbers being called in 51 times in 2008 and 28 times in 2009. Richmond Council spent £701,000 redoing the ground floor of its civic centre, £728,000 on the first floor and £1,981,000 on the second and third floors. The council said it aimed to save £35m per annum by 2014. Barking and Dagenham spent £2m on refurbishing three floors in its Town Hall Councillor Tony Arbour, cabinet member for performance, said: "This has enabled us to move out of office space in Regal House which the council was renting from a private landlord at cost of over £700,000 a year to the local taxpayer." Hounslow Council spent £424,000 on a conference centre, £150,000 replacing carpets and £15,000 on the council leader's office. A spokesman said the work "was and will remain absolutely necessary". "There were not previously enough toilets in the building, coupled with the fact that existing facilities had not been refurbished in some 30 years," he said. Bromley Council said its planned maintenance work was "higher than the norm because of programmed replacement of windows". Reupholstering 'priority' Barking and Dagenham spent more than £2m on refurbishing three floors, while Islington Council spent £1.4m on one assembly hall. Merton spent £286,000 on furniture while Redbridge paid £85 for altering clocks from GMT to BST in 2009 - described as a maintenance cost. Hillingdon Council spent £30,000 on reupholstering chairs in the council chambers. Members had identified the work as a "priority" as the poor condition of chairs was a "health and safety risk", the council said. Hillingdon added it now hoped to reduce spending on future works by £180,000 as some plans had been postponed. Charlotte Linacre, from the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is appalling that London councils have spent millions of taxpayers' money on refurbishing their own buildings. "What is even more disgraceful is that this spending was during a recession, when they were pleading poverty." Bexley, Croydon and Newham councils said they did not spend any money on upgrading their offices. But a previous BBC investigation found Newham Council spent £18.7m refurbishing its new back office. Camden Council said it could not provide the required data as the BBC's request exceeded the cost limit." You continue to confusing essential cyclical maintenance with "waste", but much more from Cllr Reddin on this in last weeks NS. I am aware I still owe you a link and will get it to you as soon as I can find it. Cllr Colin Smith
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Hayes parent says...

OMG some of us spent today working. Are we really paying our councillors to have an on line 'discussion'? (I assume this forms part of the 70/80 hour week) P.S. there are lots of people who put that many hours in, and for less pay.
OMG some of us spent today working. Are we really paying our councillors to have an on line 'discussion'? (I assume this forms part of the 70/80 hour week) P.S. there are lots of people who put that many hours in, and for less pay. Hayes parent
  • Score: 0

11:53pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Cllr Colin Smith says...

Not really ...

The constructive 45mins I spent with a delegation from the Hayes petition Group earlier this morning were though, as will be the next 2 hours I'll be spending clearing emails accumulated during the day.

Not moaning though. If you can't take a bit of graft, there's little point applying.

Sweet dreams
Not really ... The constructive 45mins I spent with a delegation from the Hayes petition Group earlier this morning were though, as will be the next 2 hours I'll be spending clearing emails accumulated during the day. Not moaning though. If you can't take a bit of graft, there's little point applying. Sweet dreams Cllr Colin Smith
  • Score: 0

1:30am Tue 8 Feb 11

GODUPERE2 says...

In a nutshell, it appears the Cllr is saying that at least Bromley council is not as wasteful as the other quoted councils.
Personally speaking, that isnt really a defence is it?
In a nutshell, it appears the Cllr is saying that at least Bromley council is not as wasteful as the other quoted councils. Personally speaking, that isnt really a defence is it? GODUPERE2
  • Score: 0

8:55am Tue 8 Feb 11

Cllr Colin Smith says...

With the greatest respect, he's not saying that at all Godup..

He's saying that the Council has to maintain it's property and estate in exactly the same way you repair and replace your property/house when it gets old, inefficient and has come to the end of its useful life.

The article in question covered a three year period and is by definition only a snap-shot in time. Every Council in the Country will fluctuate positionwise within such unscienfic surveys dependent on where they sit within their own maintenence cycle.
With the greatest respect, he's not saying that at all Godup.. He's saying that the Council has to maintain it's property and estate in exactly the same way you repair and replace your property/house when it gets old, inefficient and has come to the end of its useful life. The article in question covered a three year period and is by definition only a snap-shot in time. Every Council in the Country will fluctuate positionwise within such unscienfic surveys dependent on where they sit within their own maintenence cycle. Cllr Colin Smith
  • Score: 0

9:31am Tue 8 Feb 11

HayesMum says...

Cllr Colin Smith wrote:
With the greatest respect, he's not saying that at all Godup..

He's saying that the Council has to maintain it's property and estate in exactly the same way you repair and replace your property/house when it gets old, inefficient and has come to the end of its useful life.

The article in question covered a three year period and is by definition only a snap-shot in time. Every Council in the Country will fluctuate positionwise within such unscienfic surveys dependent on where they sit within their own maintenence cycle.
I actually don't have a problem with the amount being spent on the civic centre as we all know how much house maintenance costs let alone a massive site like that. However - I hope it is maintenance and not also lavish decorations for the offices. Perhaps 50p a metre saved on carpets could save some of the cuts? are you buying some motivational art at a ridiculous price when you could be using local childrens artwork to brighten the conference rooms ?
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Colin Smith[/bold] wrote: With the greatest respect, he's not saying that at all Godup.. He's saying that the Council has to maintain it's property and estate in exactly the same way you repair and replace your property/house when it gets old, inefficient and has come to the end of its useful life. The article in question covered a three year period and is by definition only a snap-shot in time. Every Council in the Country will fluctuate positionwise within such unscienfic surveys dependent on where they sit within their own maintenence cycle.[/p][/quote]I actually don't have a problem with the amount being spent on the civic centre as we all know how much house maintenance costs let alone a massive site like that. However - I hope it is maintenance and not also lavish decorations for the offices. Perhaps 50p a metre saved on carpets could save some of the cuts? are you buying some motivational art at a ridiculous price when you could be using local childrens artwork to brighten the conference rooms ? HayesMum
  • Score: 0

9:40am Tue 8 Feb 11

HayesMum says...

Hayes parent wrote:
OMG some of us spent today working. Are we really paying our councillors to have an on line 'discussion'? (I assume this forms part of the 70/80 hour week) P.S. there are lots of people who put that many hours in, and for less pay.
yes, I have to agree. As much as it is refreshing to see a councillor on here answering comments and queries - it's not really the best use of your time. I'd rather you spent part of your 70/80 hours looking for ways to save cuts and potentially save a childs life than on internet chat rooms having an argument with people who may not even live in the borough and are just enjoying winding people up (not specifically anyone on this subject just generally as a whole website). I might be a bored mass-murderer serving time in a Glaswegian prison for all you know.
[quote][p][bold]Hayes parent[/bold] wrote: OMG some of us spent today working. Are we really paying our councillors to have an on line 'discussion'? (I assume this forms part of the 70/80 hour week) P.S. there are lots of people who put that many hours in, and for less pay.[/p][/quote]yes, I have to agree. As much as it is refreshing to see a councillor on here answering comments and queries - it's not really the best use of your time. I'd rather you spent part of your 70/80 hours looking for ways to save cuts and potentially save a childs life than on internet chat rooms having an argument with people who may not even live in the borough and are just enjoying winding people up (not specifically anyone on this subject just generally as a whole website). I might be a bored mass-murderer serving time in a Glaswegian prison for all you know. HayesMum
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree