Croydon (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Croydon Mayor Jason Perry faces backlash after refusing to accept two petitions signed by over 5,000 locals at a full council meeting at the Town Hall.
As the Conservative-controlled council refuses to discuss the situation at the carers’ centre on George Street and the on-off-on-again sale of listed building Heathfield House, MP Natasha Irons claims that “Croydon Council is undermining democracy.”
Officials have lied to a local MP, rejected thousands of signatures as somehow “invalid,” and used the flimsy pretext of basic incompetence as part of the council’s attempts to stifle democratic discourse.
There were petitions to stop the sale of Heathfield House and to prevent the closing of the Croydon Carers Centre on George Street.
The Carers Centre petition has around 2,600 signatories, while the Heathfield House petition has over 2,400 confirmed signatures.
It only takes 500 signatures “from local people to trigger a public petition debate at a full council meeting,” according to the council’s own regulations.
Additionally, the council’s constitution now states that “online or electronic petitions may be accepted, provided the council can verify that the signatories are ‘Local People’ in the same manner as paper petitions.”
However, Perry’s purportedly “digital first” council asserted that one of the petitions was not received promptly and that it ended up in the spam folder of a council officer.
Council authorities determined that over 2,000 of the petition’s signatures, or around 80%, were invalid, thus the other petition was not allowed to appear on Wednesday’s agenda.
“Perry’s really got his bollocks caught in a mangle over the decision to sell Heathfield House and the change of carers’ support contractor,” a Katharine Street source said today.
“He’s been doing more U-turns than a delivery driver in an LTN.”
Perry frequently asserts that he is paying attention to the people of the borough.
In light of the upcoming local elections in just over a year and the Tory Mayor’s disastrous record in power, which includes raising the council tax by 27% since 2023, efforts are being made to quell criticism of Perry and his council’s poor decision-making.
Only four full council meetings are held at the Town Hall Chamber each year; no significant council business is conducted at the fifth, May, annual meeting, which also includes the “Mayor-making” ceremonies for a civic mayor.
Additionally, Perry is obviously in a panic due to the growing awareness of his bungling, broken promises, and growing opposition to his programs.
However, Perry and Katherine Kerswell, his £204,000-a-year council chief executive, have only succeeded in exposing themselves as incompetent and anti-democratic in their attempt to “bury bad news” by preventing the petition debates.
Heathfield House went up for auction in February, with a ridiculously low £1 million guiding price. The council pulled the property from the auction after Inside Croydon’s reporting revealed the sale of the heritage asset, and within a few days, over a thousand people signed the petition.
They said it was a “mistake” by the reputable and professional auctioneers, and they later insisted that the building was somehow not being flogged off because it was a 125-year lease being offered for sale.
“You may have seen Mayor Perry posting a cheerful update suggesting that despite all our opposition, Croydon Council are still pursuing leasehold sale of the building, with no public consultation,” the petitioners said.
“We think it’s unacceptable that Perry can visit the house to film a video claiming he wants to ‘protect’ the house and repeating previous statements, whilst offering no transparency nor responding to those he claims to serve.”
On March 3, the petition was formally delivered to the council’s top lawyer; nevertheless, the council had not responded by last week. The Heathfield House petition was not mentioned in the agenda for last week’s council meeting.
In a previous letter to Perry, Croydon East MP Natasha Irons supported the petitioners by urging a public consultation, involving historical specialists in discussions over the property’s future, and halting any sale.
In a follow-up letter to Mayor Perry and the council, the MP emphasized that the petition had amassed enough signatures to warrant a full council meeting and discussion.
The council attempted to reply that it “had no records of any petition.”
A council jobsworth wrote to the MP, and tried to maintain the lie that the sale of a 125-year lease is not selling the property.
“In response to your email we would advise that we have no records of any petition being formally submitted to the council,” the official claimed in reply to Irons, “
and secondly the council is not disposing of Heathfield House.
“The council is exploring options as to how best to attract third-party investment into the property – money that the council does not have. This to ensure that public access to the property and wider park and ground areas are maintained as part of any investment.”
Irons sent another letter to the Croydon council, copying in CEO Kerswell and council legal chief Stephen Lawrence-Orumwense. This time, Irons included supporting documentation demonstrating that the petition had been sent on time and to the correct council email account.
Sources inside Fisher’s Folly said that Kerswell met with Green Party councillor Ria Patel today and that during their discussion, the council was told that the petition had ended up in their spam folder, which is why they don’t have a trace of it.
Currently, there will also be no discussion of the Carers’ Centre petition at this week’s meeting.
The council asserted that the activists had failed to reach the 500-signature goal with the Carers’ Centre petition, denying 2,000 signatures.
According to correspondence from the council, seen by Inside Croydon, “The petition was submitted to Croydon Council’s Democratic Services on 9th March 2025. However, it did not include the required signatures at the time of submission.
“Upon receiving the petition, we advised the petitioner that signatures were required for the petition to be considered valid and recommended that she liaise with Change.com to obtain the necessary signatures.
She was also informed that [sic] the submission deadline for petitions to be considered at the April full council meeting was 25th March 2025.
The signatures were subsequently submitted on 1 April 2025.”
They acknowledged receipt and informed the lead petitioner that although we would proceed with the verification process, however, as the deadline had passed, the petition — if validated — would be considered at the next ordinary full council meeting on 16th July 2025.
Yes, there will be no full council meetings for three months to discuss Perry’s council’s business. His £84,000 Mayor’s salary is definitely worth it.
“After the verification process concluded today, we can now confirm that only 473 out of the 2,534 signatures submitted have met the definition of ‘Local People’ threshold as set out in the Croydon Constitution,” the council bureaucrat wrote in the email to the petitioners. Regretfully, this indicates that the petition has not reached the necessary level of discussion at the full council.
Perry and officials have been accused of censoring public questions prior to the council meeting, raising suspicions about how council business is being “controlled.”
Public questions concerning the council’s investments in the arms trade and the installation of Live Facial Recognition cameras in certain areas of the borough have both been rejected.
The way Perry and council officials are attempting to stifle public criticism of their ineptitude and poor choices has infuriated opposing council members.
Stuart King, the leader of Labour’s largest group of councillors at the Town Hall, told Inside Croydon that a council that is genuine about “listening to Croydon” would not try to quiet or censor public comments in this way.
It is alleged that council representatives rejected legitimate signatures and misrepresented receiving petitions. According to reports, one petition was lost in a spam bin.
“Mayor Perry needs to intervene to ensure that the views of 2,500 residents are not ignored in the council he leads. That means that the petition must be tabled and a full response provided,”
Councillor King said.
Green Councillor Patel said:
“The democratic process seems to be disappearing from Mayor Perry’s administration. As time’s gone on there is less and less engagement and we are just left with Trump-style orders appearing without any discussion.”
Patel highlights how Perry and his officials have cancelled a cabinet meeting originally scheduled for the end of this month, as well as a meeting of the constitution working group, an audit and governance meeting and the group leaders’ meeting.
And on the Heathfield House petition, Croydon East MP Natasha Irons told Inside Croydon: “It is deeply concerning that a petition with more than 2,000 signatures is being disregarded, and local democracy is being undermined by Croydon Council.
The Save Heathfield House campaign is about protecting a piece of Croydon’s heritage and those campaigning for its future are doing so on behalf of the whole community.
Croydon Council must urgently reconsider its decision to ignore the voices of the community.”
How does the council’s handling of these petitions compare to other local authorities?
The petitions were denied even though they had more than 5,000 signatures. This implies a high bar or stringent requirements for petition evaluation.
In order to ensure that even fewer signatures can result in a response (such as a written reply or a meeting), many councils set lower requirements or no thresholds at all for responding to petitions.
A rigorous commitment to technical criteria may be indicated by the rejection of petitions on the grounds of procedural problems (such as invalid signatures).
Councils are typically urged to reply to all petitions that adhere to the requirements, concentrating on the core of the matter rather than the minutiae, even though procedural norms are crucial.
The public’s impression of a lack of involvement and openness may indicate that the council’s strategy is less inclusive than others.