Air Pollution & Covid-19

It has been ages since I last wrote a blog post.  Like many of you, I have been juggling not just my councillor role, but home schooling my 2 primary school aged boys, and doing what I can to help in the community. 

Many of our statutory committees at the council have not met since the beginning of March.  These meetings were originally postponed or cancelled due to lock down measures.  However, the technology and legislation are now in place to allow these committees to continue their valuable work.  We are yet to see many of them reinstated, and continue to push for this to happen so that democracy can resume (key decisions are still being made, and effective scrutiny is part of the governance structure of local authorities), but we have now been informed that Full Council will be back on the schedule.  This is really good news, for many reasons, not least because we finally get to debate and vote on my air pollution motion. 

Much of the air pollution we experience is created by the burning of fossil fuels.  Man has been creating pollution in the air ever since we learnt to make fire.  Today, a lot of the air pollution created by the combustion of fossil fuels comes from generating heat and electricity and powering vehicles.  This combustion process releases gases such as nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) as well as small particles.  NOX is the generic term for both nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide.  These gases can also react with other pollutants in the air to create secondary pollutants such as ammonia.  It’s also important to note that small particles are also in our atmosphere due to other sources, such as dust and soil blown by the wind, including road dust. 

As I’ve written about before, it is the fine particles that are of most concern.  Particulates are defined not by what they’re made of, but their size.  Larger particles known as PM 10s can be seen as smoke or haze and our bodies natural defences filter them out, such as nose hair.  It is the smaller particulates, PM 2.5s, that are concerning as they are often carcinogenic.  They can penetrate much further into the body and enter the bloody stream causing all kinds of damage and are attributable to 4 out of 5 deaths from air pollution.  Whilst the World Health Organisation (WHO) has set maximum limits for PM 2.5s, no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed.  As Public Health England state, “current levels of particulate air pollution in the UK…[has] a significant impact on the life expectancy of the population.”[i]

Local authorities are required by law to identify areas that either exceed or risk exceeding national objective levels of air pollution for particular pollutants, and develop action plans to meet those objectives.  So you may be wondering why I’m bringing up this subject again, and trying to address the issue of air pollution at a time of national and international crisis.  Well, I’ve been reading some very interesting research on the subject that links with the Covid-19 situation. 

In a research paper from Havard School of Public Health[ii], is a study of whether long-term exposure to PM 2.5’s is associated with an increased risk of Covid-19 deaths in the United States.  We already know that there is a greater chance of a severe outcome in patients with certain infectious respiratory diseases with a greater exposure to PM 2.5’s and that air pollution causes inflammation and cellular damage.  The study has made adjustments “for a wide range of socioeconomic, demographic, weather, behavioural, epidemic stage, and healthcare-related confounders.”  With all that taken into account, it found that an “increase of only 1 𝜇g/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) in PM2.5 is associated with an 8% increase in the COVID-19 death rate.”  This means that “a small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in the COVID-19 death rate.” 

In another study from the University of Birmingham[iii], scientists have analysed the impact the lock down has had on air pollution in Wuhan, China, and how this has affected the death rate.  The study has found that nitrogen dioxide reduced by 63%, which in turn prevented 496 deaths in Wuhan itself, 3,368 in Hubei province and 10,822 in China.  The official death toll from Covid-19 in China is 4,634.

This leads to the question of how do they know how many lives have been prevented?  There is a lag between the exposure and effect of air pollution (i.e. people don’t suddenly just die), so it’s not a straight forward answer to define death rates from air pollution.  Deaths attributable to air pollution are calculated based on the total years of life lost.  For example, “in the UK, air pollution is shortening life expectancies by 3 to 7 months on average, amounting to 340,000 years lost across the total population.  Divide this by the average lifespan, and you get to a figure of around 40,000 deaths.”[iv]  However some people’s exposure shortens their lives by a day, whereas some could lose 10 years.  Estimating the number of deaths makes it much easier to communicate to the public.  It’s important to remember though that, whilst the mortality effect of air pollution is not instant, not only does air pollution shorten our lives, it can lead to chronic and debilitating illnesses that make those shorter years more painful.  If you want to read up further on how this is calculated, particularly in the UK for local authorities, Estimating Local Mortality Burdens Associated With Particulate Air Pollution[v] by Public Health England explains it all. 

I am sure that we’re going to see many more studies come out in due course, but I’m sure many of us can recount personally how the air has tasted so much cleaner whilst we’ve been on lock down.  These initial studies have shown the importance of continuing to enforce measures that clean up our air.  Therefore, I am proud to present a motion for our next Full Council meeting to take the next steps in tackling this issue.  Whilst I believe we can do more, this is a starting point, and we need to take the public with us on this journey.  Therefore, I am asking the council to:

  • Monitor the level of particulate matter 2.5 across the borough. 
  • Review the work done on No-Vehicle-Idling nationally in other local authorities and integrate this into an Action Plan for No-Vehicle-Idling zones covering the Wokingham Borough Council area with a view to implementing No-Vehicle-Idling zones, around as many schools in the Borough as possible, by the end of 2022, and in other identified areas such as taxi ranks and close to level crossings
  • Encourage local businesses to sponsor green walls on school buildings and tree planting near schools and the appropriate executive member includes this in their action plan.
  • Increase spending on active travel in future budgets, especially safe cycle lanes. 
  • Produce a strategy for implementing a car club scheme across the borough. 

This motion follows on from my colleague, Cllr Paul Fishwick’s motion last year for the creation of a low emission transport strategy (including an electric vehicle strategy) which is underway. I look forward to being able to update you with the outcome of the above motion in due course. 

Stay Safe! 




[iv] Smedley, Tim, Clearing The Air


Enough is Enough…Again!

Today was the first day of the public inquiry for Woodcray countryside.  Woodcray is a piece of countryside land next to Finchampstead Road backing onto Luckley School.  Gladmans have put in an application to build 216 houses on the land, and Wokingham Borough Council turned it down for a number of very good reasons.  I’m not going to go into detail on all the aspects as you’d be reading this all day, but if you want to dig into detail on certain aspects, the documents are on the WBC planning portal under application number 190286. 

In short, WBC is fulfilling its housing quota and the location is unsustainable for a number of reasons.  What has been amazing is seeing the team effort, spear headed by a group of residents, into scrutinising all the information submitted and co-ordinating our responses.  Today, 10 members of the public and councillors (cross-party) spoke against the application, and there are more to come on Friday morning.  This group of amazing residents worked with us to ensure that we all picked up on different aspects so we weren’t all repeating ourselves.  The result today was some incredibly powerful statements that demonstrate why the planning inspector must turn down this application.  It was a fantastic team effort, and I am also impressed with WBC’s barrister and the effort the officers have put in in preparation for this inquiry. 

The inquiry continues with the following itinerary:

  • Wed 11th – Landscape character and appearance – evidence and cross examination
  • Thur 12th – Round table – trees in the morning and highways and pedestrian safety in the afternoon.
  • Fri 13th – Public statements followed by round table – access to local services and public transport (finish by lunchtime)
  • Tue 17th – Round table – housing land supply in the morning and affordable housing and planning evidence in the afternoon
  • Wed 18th – Affordable housing and planning evidence continued
  • Thur 19th – Planning conditions and S106 agreements followed by closing statements.

Therefore, if you wish to speak either for or against this application, there is another opportunity on Friday morning. 

What was also incredible today was the number of people in the council chamber opposing the development.  Not only was the council chamber full, so was the public gallery.  Please do continue to come down and support us all on this.  It sends a very strong, clear message to the inspector making the decision. 

Please see below, the statement I made today for the inquiry. 

Junction Design

The design of the junction onto the A321 Finchampstead Road to and from the proposed development, is substandard and consequently dangerous, for the following reasons;

The access road from Finchampstead Road is the only public access road to the proposed development, which for a development of this size, contradicts policy.  Policy that is there for the safety of people.  Both the Highway Design Guidance and Living Streets states that in a development that proposes an access with no through movement and is a cul-de-sac, a maximum of 100 homes would be allowed.  This application has more than twice that number of homes. 

Finchampstead Road is an A class road with a speed limit of 40 mph at the point of the proposed junction.  In order to determine visibility for junction design, either the speed limit is used or the 85th percentile speed from a speed survey.  Although reference is made to a speed survey in the application, there is no speed survey.  Therefore, visibility for the design must be determined from the stated speed limit of the highway – 40 mph. 

There is some confusion as to which highways guidance should be used for this application.  At the point of application, the Wokingham Highway Design Guide 2006 was the document on the council’s website to use.  On 1st October 2019, the council released Living Streets: A Highways Guide for Developers in Wokingham.”  As the latter is still draft policy and has not been adopted yet, the 2006 Design Guide is the policy which should be accorded most weight in determination of this appeal. 

The Wokingham Highways Design Guide 2006 states that for a road with a 40mph speed limit, the ‘Y’ distance, which is the visibility a driver would have looking out along the Finchampstead Road, must be 120 metres.  Not the 59 metres that this junction has been designed to. 

Even if this application is determined in accordance with the guidance set out in Living Streets, this requires that the Manual for Streets 2 should be the basis for determining the ‘Y’ distance for a 40mph road. The Manual stipulates that the ‘Y’ distance should be based on ‘safe stopping distance’ as determined in the Highway Code. This is 36 metres (12m thinking distance and 24m braking distance).  However, the Highway Code also states at Rule 227

“ wet weather, stopping distances will be at least double those required for stopping on dry roads…”

Under these circumstances, to allow a safe stopping distance in accordance with the Highway Code, a ‘Y’ distance of 72m should be provided. Either way, whichever policy framework is applied, the 59m ‘Y’ distance proposed in the design of the junction is well short of what is deemed safe. 

These images demonstrate what the proposed ‘Y’ distance of 59 metres looks like.  Please note that the ‘X’ distance of 2.4 metres, which is how far back the driver is set, cannot be demonstrated as there is too much hedging in the way.  Note, you are looking for me in a high vis jacket in each image. Image 3 you can’t see me due to the bend in the road. As you can see from these images, there is very little time for a vehicle travelling at 40 mph to react. 

The safety audit even highlights that the ‘Y’ visibility is not right for the speed of the road stating it “may result in an increased risk of vehicular collisions.”  So the probability of an accident is increased by the poor junction design.  This design is not safe for road users and it is not safe for those living in the development.  Approving this development puts people’s lives in danger. 

Air Quality

Air quality in the area also concerns me greatly.  I frequently walk and run along Finchampstead Road and I can actually taste the pollution, it’s that bad.  I have 2 young boys at Evendons Primary School and my youngest, Leighton, since starting at the school has developed a severe allergy to cats.  Prior to starting school, Leighton had no issues around cats.  Now, even after taking antihistamines, with some cats he not only gets red and itchy eyes, he gets a rash all over his face and body, his breathing becomes very laboured and wheezy and he coughs so much he cries because its hurts.  The children’s play area at the school backs onto Finchampstead Road. 

More and more these days, people are suffering with allergies, and science has proven that one of the main contributing factors is the rise in air pollution.  And it’s not just allergies that air pollution causes or affects.  There are a whole range of chronic illnesses people suffer from that are either caused or made worse by the poor air that we breath, including heart disease, asthma and cancer amongst others.  Air pollution stunts lung growth in children and in Wokingham, according to the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, we are above national and regional averages for children being hospitalised for respiratory tract infections. 

Air pollution is now the number one environmental cause of premature death in the world.  A major contributor to air pollution is transport, and Wokingham is one of the highest car owning boroughs in the country. 

The proposed development is approximately 1 km away from an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) where we have hard data showing that we are in breach of the Nitrogen Dioxide limits.  Don’t let people tell you that it’s getting better there.  When the levels dipped in 2018, the town centre, where the AQMA is, was being regenerated and the road was closed.  Preliminary Nitrogen Dioxide testing has also been taking place through Friends of the Earth outside Evendons Primary School, and the raw data is showing levels of nitrogen dioxide that breach World Health Organisation (WHO) and EU limits. 

The British Heart Foundation have been doing a lot of research into air quality and interestingly, have produced quite different results in the area of this proposed development that contradict the air quality report done by Wardell Armstrong. 

Using the same source of data, Defra, the British Heart Foundation have found through their methodology that the average level of particulate matter 2.5 in the vicinity of the proposed development was 10.13 micrograms per cubic meter in 2017 and 10.18 micrograms per cubic metre in 2018, i.e. it’s on the rise.  Particulate matter is the solid matter that gets absorbed into your blood, is often carcinogenic, and is attributable to 4 out of 5 deaths from air pollution.  The amount of particulate matter 2.5’s in the vicinity of this proposed development is already above World Health Organisation (WHO) maximum levels.  Please bare in mind that small particulate pollution has health impacts even at very low concentrations – indeed, no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed.  10.18 micrograms per cubic metre of particulate matter is equivalent to smoking 129 cigarettes per year.  No wonder my little boy is suffering!  And we’re talking about putting more polluting cars on the road! 

This leads me to question why there’s such a difference between the British Heart Foundation (BHF) Research and the Wardell Armstrong research.  Firstly, whilst both are using the Defra data, Wardell Armstrong are using 2015 data, and BHF are using 2017 data.  Secondly, Wardell Armstrong appear to use a composite approach where they show the background levels of pollution then superimpose the traffic levels on top, based on estimations, as there is no monitoring in the area.  This is different to how BHF do it, who use Defra’s raw output data and don’t use a composite approach.  (Link to BHF methodology  With particulate 2.5’s, you would typically see between 10 and 20% of the total amount attributable to traffic, but the data in the Wardell Armstrong report is substantially lower, with figures between 6 and 8%.  This doesn’t make any sense given the traffic movements on this major A road.  And if you compare this report to the air quality report submitted with the previous application for this site in 2017, which was done by the same company but different authors, the levels of particulate 2.5’s in the previous application’s report is substantially higher and breaching WHO limits.  The air quality report for this application is showing a substantial decrease in particulates, which goes against the national trends which demonstrate it increasing, and as previously stated, the 2017 and 2018 data from BHF demonstrate exactly that.  In addition, there is no mention in the report from Wardell Armstrong of the Southern Distributor Road that will be coming out at the Tesco’s roundabout which will accommodate the 2,500 houses being built there, and will be placing even more vehicles onto this route.  In short, something is wrong with the Wardell Armstrong report, and it does not reflect the reality of what we are breathing every day. 

The British Heart Foundation has also produced research that demonstrates how many of the annual deaths due to heart and circulatory disease in Wokingham were attributable to air pollution.  The most recent data they’ve produced for Wokingham was for 2017 and that figure is 65.  Let that sink in for a moment – 65 people died in Wokingham alone from air pollution in just one year! 

Gladmans will tell you that people can travel without using their cars.  The reality is that the infrastructure for this is extremely lacking.  This is an unsustainable location.  The bus service is so infrequent, very few people use it, and throwing a small amount of money at it, isn’t going to fix it long term.  The footways, where they exist, are narrow and right next to this busy major A class road.  Gladmans may very well state that residents of the development can use their new cycle and walking access route, but it doesn’t stretch the whole length of Finchampstead Road.  They will join this heavily polluted road at Tangley Drive, and that’s if they’re heading towards town.  There are other locations they may be travelling to, such as towards Finchampstead, that would mean they would be accessing and using Finchampstead Road from the poorly designed junction I mentioned earlier.  If they were trying to take one of the infrequent buses, they still have to stand and wait on the side of the road breathing in the polluted air.  And what about those of us that aren’t living in the development?  We all still have to carry on using a heavily polluted, narrow and dangerous footway with no safe cycling infrastructure with even more cars either driving or idling next to us.  Think for just a moment about those children being walked or who cycle on the narrow footway to school having to have the growth of their lungs stunted by the pollutants coming out of those car engines.  And most children do walk and cycle to Evendons Primary School despite the terrible infrastructure, the school having recently won an award for this. 

Do not tell me for a single moment that this development is not going to make air quality worse.  It’s already damaging us and our children and this development will make it worse.  This development is unsustainable and must be rejected. 

Nevertheless, She Persisted…

This Sunday it’s International Women’s Day, a day to celebrate the achievements of women across the globe, raise awareness against bias, and strive for a gender equal world.  There may be many of you wondering why we need this day, but the scary truth is that in 2020, we still have a long way to go.  In the UK last year, we actually fell 6 places in the global rankings for gender equality from 15th to 21st.  Not only are we not making progress, we’re going backwards. 

I have never been what I would call an active feminist, despite having been the victim of gender inequality.  This is in part because I just accepted this was how society was, but as I get older and wiser, and am in a position of influence, I want to speak out and do something about it. 

One thing I believe that as a society we need to appreciate more, is that in order to provide equal opportunity you have treat people differently because everyone is different.  This doesn’t just relate to gender equality.  In order to ensure a wheelchair user can use a bus, special provision has to be put in, above and beyond what other users would need.  Why then do so many not recognise this with other protected characteristics, such as gender?

I had many experiences early on in my career that have happened based on my gender.  These have ranged from experiences of inequality in the workplace to attempted sexual assault.  I am not saying that these things can’t happen to men, (men can be sexually assaulted), but it was me being a woman in these circumstances that led to the behaviour. 

The experiences that stand out include:

  • The boss who on a business trip knocked on my hotel bedroom door under the pretence of wanting to discuss something business related, and resulted in me having to kick him in the nether regions as he tried to force himself upon me;
  • The time I had my drink spiked in a bar after work.  What was equally upsetting was the reaction I got from my colleagues who I was with.  My colleagues blamed me for not having taken greater care of my drink.  I was in central London and I somehow made it home to my place in Surrey and my neighbour found me passed out on my front lawn.  Not one colleague helped me or even checked I made it home safe.  I was just 22 years old! 
  • I worked for a large American IT firm in my mid 20’s and was very good at my job consistently achieving well above my targets.  I went on maternity leave and when I returned, after a couple of months, applied for a promotion that had become available.  I didn’t even get an interview being told “we need you to reprove yourself.”  I would happily accept if I wasn’t right for the role, but my maternity cover hire, doing the exact same job was the one who got the promotion and to have been denied even an interview on the grounds of needing to reprove myself is unacceptable. 

I am not alone in these experiences.  The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimates that 20% of women and 4% of men have experienced some type of sexual assault since the age of 16, and according to research from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, 77% of working mums have encountered negative or discriminatory treatment at work.  These are just some of many examples of what I experienced, and I am ashamed to say that I did nothing about any of them.  I just accepted that this is what society is like.  I felt I didn’t have a voice to use and didn’t want to lose my job.  So why am I speaking out now? 

I was elected onto Wokingham Borough Council just over a year ago and in that short time, have been dismayed at the inequality that prevails, and believe that I have a duty to inform in order to incite change.  Looking outside of the council chamber and the services that WBC provides, I was shocked to hear that women only swimming sessions had been cancelled.  I was in a meeting where we were discussing how to engage more residents in sporting activities and exercise.  As I stated at the beginning, in order to provide equal opportunity, you have to treat people differently because everyone is different.  Women only swimming sessions were offered because there are a number of women in society who won’t or can’t access public swimming pools whilst men are using them.  For some this is due to their religion, and for some, they could have escaped domestic abuse and are too traumatised to want to be seen in their swim wear by men.  Yes, I appreciate that domestic abuse happens to men as well, but it is something that disproportionately affects women, and I’m using this as an example.  There are women in society that having men in the swimming pool provides a barrier for them to use the facility, and a way of overcoming that was provided.  What was shocking to hear was that this service was stopped because men complained that they weren’t getting equal treatment.  If there were genuine grounds for a mens only session, that is another matter, but to claim inequality demonstrates how far we still have to go in society. 

Back inside the council chamber, we currently have 18 female elected members out of 54, yet the latest numbers show that more than 50% of Wokingham’s population is female.  In order for good democratic decision-making, local politicians need to reflect the diversity of the communities we represent, and when it comes to gender, we’re not doing that.  There are a number of barriers in the way and these need to be addressed. 

In January’s full council meeting, it was proposed to move full council meeting times earlier by 30 minutes.  I’m sure many people would believe this not to be a big deal, but I spoke that evening about how it’s yet another barrier to diversity in the council chamber, and thankfully the chamber voted against it.  Whilst a small move, the shutting down of diversity leads to poor democratic decision-making, and we should be moving in the other direction. 

I would like to see positive changes made at the council that open us up and make us more diverse so that we can truly represent our community.  My fear though is that there is an engrained attitude that will make this hard to overcome.  If anyone remembers Charlotte Haitham-Taylor’s exit speech when she was bullied out of her position, you’ll remember she spoke of the old boy’s network. 

In the year since I’ve been elected, I’ve had inappropriate comments made about my appearance (inappropriate enough that other councillors have jumped in and said something); I had a late night intimidating phone call from a senior councillor, trying to shame and belittle me because I dared to stand up to them; I have been told that I am too naïve and unintelligent to be any good at my role and voters were conned into voting for me due to my appearance…(no, I’m not joking); The scariest experience though is the print media and online bullying and intimidation I’ve been subjected to.  Bullying and harassment has been an ongoing problem in national politics, and in recent times has become quite high profile in the media.  QC Gemma White led the independent inquiry Bullying and Harassment of MP’s Parliamentary Staff last year, and several female MP’s stood down from re-election for last year’s election, citing the nastiness and intimidation that has become commonplace.  My experiences conclude that the problem is at all levels of politics. 

To quote Charlotte Bronte in Jane Eyre, “I do not think, sir, you have any right to command me, merely because you are older than I, or because you have seen more of the world than I have; your claim to superiority depends on the use you have made of your time and experience.” 

We have got to overcome this inequality and I will continue to push to break down these barriers at the council.  I also want to take the opportunity to thank all those out there, women and men, who are fighting to break down the barriers we have throughout society.  In particular I would like to thank Louise Timlin and Juliet Sherrett for helping me put this piece together.  To still have to fight in 2020 is quite frankly unbelievable, but I hold out hope that one day, we will get there.  #eachforequal #IWN2020

Air Pollution & Carbon

Part of being a local councillor means receiving phone calls and emails from journalists wanting my views on a range of topics.  As a party, we have local spokespeople for certain topics depending on our areas of responsibility and the local press have a list of who to contact depending on the nature of the story.  I am the spokesperson for Wokingham Lib Dems on arts, culture and libraries, but I am also deputy spokesperson for children’s services, equalities and environment.  We also get contacted about matters arising in the wards we represent.  In addition, I am the vice-chair of the climate emergency working group at WBC, so it will be of no surprise that I get contacted by the press in that capacity as well.  The last week has been no exception with 2 environmental stories running in the Wokingham Paper, one on air pollution, and the other in response to John Redwood’s blog about climate reduction. 

Air Pollution

Data released by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) has revealed that the residents of Wokingham Borough are breathing in polluted air that exceeds guidelines set out by the World Health Organization (WHO). 

BHF has been measuring particulates which are the fine particles (solids) that float in the air and are emitted from a number of sources, including vehicles, along with the various gases they emit.  Particulates are defined not by what they’re made of, but their size.  Larger particles known as PM10s can be seen as smoke or haze and our bodies natural defences filter them out, such as nose hair.  It is the smaller particulates (PM2.5s) which are typically created by modern combustion techniques that are of most concern.  PM2.5s penetrate much further into the body and can enter the blood stream causing all kinds of damage.  Depending on what they are made of, many are classed as carcinogenic.  The European Environment Agency did a study looking at premature deaths attributable to PM2.5s across 40 European countries in 2012.  PM2.5s were credited to 432,000 deaths.  To put this in perspective, nitrogen dioxide and ozone, combined were credited to 92,000 deaths.  Across global studies, approximately 4 out of every 5 deaths attributed to air pollution are caused by PM2.5s.[1] 

It is the PM2.5s that BHF have been measuring and have found to be above WHO recommended limits (although any amount is not good).  There is some information on their website about the study, but I’ve put in a request for further information which I am waiting for.[2]

At the moment WBC measures just nitrogen dioxide (NO2) across the borough through diffusion tubes.  Diffusion tubes measure ambient levels of NO2 and are removed monthly and tested.  There’s a lot of holes with what WBC are doing (which local authorities up and down the country are also doing):

  • All WBC receives is a monthly average reading – this gives them no indication of peak hours or peak days – it’s an educated guess.  
  • There is relative uncertainty with the data collected +/- 25% which is worrying.  This is why 3 years of data is required (3 years of potentially being exposed to harmful pollutants before action is taken)
  • This only measures NO2 – WBC are not monitoring other harmful pollutants such as ozone, sulphur dioxide and particulates (and in particular PM2.5s) that has been highlighted by BHF research.  
  • Wokingham Borough has 3 air quality management areas where levels of NO2 have exceeded the maximum.  In one of those locations, Wokingham Town Centre, the Borough Council has an automatic monitoring station that continuously measure NO2, so more accurate, but still just NO2.  
  • World Health Organisation maximum levels of pollutants are typical much lower than what nations adopt.  For example, WHO recommends public exposure of no more than 8ppb (parts per billion) in a 24 our period of sulphur dioxide.  The EU has set its cap at 48ppb.  

WBC just does not know the level of pollutants in the air that we breath.  Given that air pollution is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the world, this is worrying.  There are a whole range of chronic illnesses people suffer from that are either caused or made worse by the poor air that we breath, including heart disease, asthma and cancer amongst others.  The recent Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA)[3] report that came out demonstrated that the number one cause of death in the borough is cancer, and we are above regional and national averages for young children being hospitalised for respiratory tract infections.  The fact that we’re not monitoring air pollutant efficiently and effectively is a serious concern. 

With or without effective monitoring, the council is focused on the climate emergency, and the fear is that tackling air pollution will be pushed to one side.  At the moment, it’s been mentioned a couple of times in the climate emergency action plan, but given that the climate emergency action plan is about reducing carbon dioxide, air pollution needs to be treated as the separate issue that it is.  It needs a public health campaign around it, a bit like the government did around smoking several years ago as well as effective monitoring and a wide range of actions to go with it.  I have requested that air pollution is given the spotlight it also needs, and my colleague Cllr Paul Fishwick proposed the strategy to lower transport emissions that was approved at council last Autumn.  It’s a step in the right direction, but so much more needs to be done. 

In addition to putting pressure on the local authority to implement monitoring and measures to reduce air pollution, I’m also working with my local primary school to look at a planting scheme for around the children’s play area to create a natural shield and reduce the air pollution being breathed in whilst the children play.  The play area is next to a major A road which is frequently heavily congested.  Whilst air pollution and particulates are bad for all of us, they are especially bad for children whose lungs are still developing. 

Carbon Emissions

Yesterday morning I was contacted about the following article written by our MP John Redwood asking for my thoughts on it:

“The UK has many campaigners against carbon dioxide who worry about levels of man made gas being put into the atmosphere. I suggest today to them that the UK has been one of the most successful countries at getting its CO2 emissions down. They should now divert their energies to cutting CO 2 in places putting out much more and not cutting in the way the UK has.

They should start with China. China adds around 30 times more CO2 to the atmosphere each year than the UK. It also puts out considerably more CO2 per head. At around 30% of world new CO2 output it is surely the place to start, as its output is still increasing.

If that is too difficult then surely they could turn their talents to changing the EU. After our departure they account for around 8 times our output with a higher CO2 output per head. They still mine and burn a lot of coal, which we have stopped doing,

Germany in particular needs attention. At more than double our CO2 output there could be quick wins. They might also like to campaign about the German motor industry which is still based around fossil fuels for most of its output.

Clearly it is much easier and cheaper to cut CO2 output in a country like China where there are quick wins and easy changes the UK has already made. It should also be welcome to the EU if we offer them advice on how we got to much lower levels per head than them, as their whole new economic and regulatory policy is based around CO2 reduction.[4]

I have to admit, when the journalist told me the nature of the article, I thought she was joking.  Whilst John Redwood is right that other countries round the world need to be changing their ways when it comes to tackling climate change, campaigners should not be taking their eye off the ball away from the UK’s role in this, particularly as the UK government continues to make decisions at odds with tackling the climate emergency.  We must continue to challenge and hold our government to account and attempting to divert our attentions elsewhere is unacceptable.

Developed countries like the UK have caused huge amounts of damage to our environment with developing countries following suit.  We should be using our position in the world to lead the change that is required and encourage others to follow.  It’s imperative that the UK continues to work with its European neighbours especially, and continues to fight for and implement change.  Within Europe, many countries from the most recent data we have are leading the pack well ahead of the UK such as Sweden, Portugal and France.  

We must also be mindful that the data is always out of date.  For example, the Wokingham Borough Council climate emergency action plan is using the most recently available data which is 2017.  Countries like China have been making huge advances in their fight against climate change since the most recent figures were published, such as with the introduction of their solar farms, which means China now has more solar energy capacity than any other country in the world.[5]  

Whilst the UK has met its first and second carbon budgets as set out through the Paris Agreement, and is on track for the 3rd, it is not on track to meet the 4th carbon budget and has some huge changes to make in order to reach those[6].  It is therefore worrying that our government continues to make decisions that would take us backwards.  The Heathrow expansion springs to mind.  Heathrow is already the single biggest source of greenhouse gases in the UK, and adding capacity for an additional 260,000 flights a year will only send emissions in the wrong direction[7].  Added to this, Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom went against the government’s own planning inspectorate recommendation and gave approval to the company Drax to build Europe’s largest gas-powered station in the North East of England[8].  Plus, the government has given a green light to a new coalmine in Cumbria[9].  And the government continues to fund fossil fuel projects abroad through an investment group.  Other governments have contributed to this fund, but the UK government has provided 70% of the money[10].

Whilst individuals are doing their best with tackling climate change, this is being undermined by the actions of our government.  There is plenty of evidence that demonstrates campaigners are right to continue challenging the UK government on climate change. 

[1] Smedley, Tim, Clearing The Air










Pointing At Potholes

There’s a bit of a joke in the Liberal Democrat party that we like pointing at things, particularly potholes.  In fact, our current party president, Mark Pack has set up a website with the subheading “Liberal Democrats in their natural habitat.”  So to buck the trend, here’s a photograph of myself and local campaigner Ian Shenton pointing at a pothole on Finchampstead Road near Carnival pool. 

I spotted this pothole yesterday (Saturday 1st Feb) when walking up to the sports centre with my kids for a swim, and used the WBC app on my phone to report it.  I was surprised that this pothole had not already been reported.  Given that we’re in the winter months when potholes are more frequent, I thought it a good idea to remind everyone how to report potholes and the council’s processes. 

Wokingham Borough Council, as the highways authority, has a responsibility to maintain all adopted roads that fall under its authority.  This means roads that are private or larger roads such as the M4 that passes through the borough, fall outside of its responsibility, but the majority of the roads that we use in the borough, WBC has to maintain. 

In April 2019, WBC entered into a new maintenance contract with Volker Highways, the contract having previously been run by Balfour Beatty.  As part of the contract, Volker’s will do inspections of the roads in the borough, and will repair defects that they come across as part of their inspections.  How frequently these inspections take place varies depending on the kind of road.  A major ‘A’ class road would have more frequent inspections (monthly) due to the high level of traffic. 

Defects though do appear in between inspections, and can be dealt with if the highways authority is made aware of them.  Members of the public can report potholes via the council’s website (click on ‘p’ for pothole, or type in pothole to the search bar) amongst many other things.  You can also report on the WBC app on your phone, although appreciate at the moment, the app is a bit clunky.  If however, the pothole is urgent, do please call 0118 974 6000 (0800 212 111 if out of hours).  Volker’s aims to repair urgent defects within 24 hours and non-urgent within 28 days. 

Below is the website version of how to report potholes which I’ve taken you through step by step.  The app is similar and as I’ve already mentioned a bit clunky.  I have raised this though with the contract owner at WBC as a way of improving the service to residents. 

Landing Page
Click on the blue button that says “report a pothole online”
You can either zoom in or start typing in the location
As you start typing you can choose the location from the drop down options
You can see other potholes that have been reported (or if they one you’re reporting has already been done). You can click to get updates sent to you on ones already reported.
Click on the screen of the location where the pothole is and choose the option “report pothole here”
Fill in any details you can and click next. On the next screen you can attach a photo if you have one.
Enter your details and click submit. You’ll get an email with a reference number

The pothole I highlighted at the beginning of this blog though upon going back today (Sunday 2nd Feb), had become much worse.  I therefore had the opportunity to test the ‘reporting an urgent pothole’ function.  As it’s the weekend and out of hours, I called the out of hours number (which I could only get by phoning the regular number as the out of hours number is not listed on the website).  I have to admit, it wasn’t the best or easiest service to use, and will be feeding this back to the contract owner at our next meeting.  I was left on the phone with no one answering and music playing for over 10 minutes without any kind of message to give me confidence that my phone call would be picked up.  I nearly gave up!  Someone eventually did pick up, but it was quickly apparent that they weren’t local when I said that the pothole was on Finchampstead Road near the town centre, and they didn’t know what part of the country I was in.  They also didn’t have access to the online reporting system so I couldn’t give them the reference number from the online report I made yesterday.  It’s not too difficult for someone with local knowledge to describe where a pothole is, but if you don’t have local knowledge (people passing through are just as entitled to report defects), it would put you off doing it.  Given the highways authority is reliant on members of the public reporting defects in between inspections, the process needs to be as easy to use as possible, and this is an area where I would like to see some improvements. 

In my own experience I found that before the new Volker contract came into play, there were some issues with the quality of repairs, and as such, many potholes are reappearing after a short period of time.  I also felt that there were some teething problems with the new contract.  There was a pothole that I reported before the new contract that didn’t get fixed, and I re-reported it twice more at the beginning of the new contract, to ultimately have to take it to the contract owner to get some action.  Problems do happen, but on recent reports, I’ve found the service to be much better and the fixes of a far better quality.  There was one pothole on the road at the foot of my drive.  Not only was it fixed within the timescale, the quality of fix is good, and the team fixing it did knock on my door first to see if I needed to get my car off the drive first. 

The pothole that was fixed at the end of my drive

I would like to point out that elected members of the council do not get any special privileges when it comes to reporting defects like potholes.  We also use the method(s) outlined above.  Where we do come in useful though is if problems arise with the above system, such as defects not being repaired properly or in a reasonable time, or at all.  We can also feedback to the contract owners anything we feel relevant.  With regards to quality, Volker’s themselves quality check 10% of the work carried out by their employees.  WBC also do spot checks, but will be doing a thorough review of the quality in the coming months as the contract comes up to its first anniversary.  I have also requested that the Volker Highways contract comes to the Overview & Scrutiny committee for a thorough review. 

And now for something completely different – Lib Dems not pointing at something for a change.  

Ian and I not pointing at the double yellow lines that have gone in on Oaklands Drive (a section wasn’t done when the lines were first put in and we’ve been pushing to get them extended for safety reasons)

Full Council January 2020

It was full council last night, the first one since September last year due to November’s being cancelled in the run up to the election, and it was a packed and varied agenda. 

It started off with some fantastic public questions, but what stood out for many of us in the council chamber were the teenagers from Bulmershe school who asked several public questions related to climate change.  It’s quite an intimidating environment in the council chamber, so fantastic to see them there, not just asking those pre-submitted questions, but also challenging supplementary questions. 

We moved onto the Homeless and Rough Sleeping Strategy where we were asked to approve it for 2020-2024.  Below is my colleague Cllr Prue Bray’s speech which was particularly moving.

The week before last, I left the council offices after a meeting using the back door out down the steps to the car park.  Shockingly, there was a homeless man wrapped in a sleeping bag at the top of the steps. 

Many of you will remember a recent council meeting during which the deputy chief executive was called out to try and deal with a woman who had presented herself at reception having fled the place she was staying because she believed it was unsafe, and had nowhere to go.  And unfortunately this council was unable to help her in the way she needed, not for want of trying, but because her specific circumstances didn’t qualify her under the rules that are in place. Equally shocking.

Nothing like either incident has happened before in all my time as a councillor, and I will have been elected for 20 years in May.   Something is wrong and getting worse and we need to fix it.

But we won’t fix it by the government simply spouting rhetoric, telling councils they have to do something, giving them extra duties and making them write a strategy. There is nothing wrong with this strategy, as far as it goes.  I don’t doubt the commitment of officers trying to help people.  The actions this council will take through the strategy will make a difference at the edges.  But it won’t solve the problem of homelessness. 

Providing more affordable homes, and other housing-related actions like reforming the private rented sector and tackling empty homes will also not be enough to fix it.  That’s because it isn’t just a housing problem. 

People are homeless for all sorts of reasons and to reduce the numbers we need  far more resources to tackle mental health, particularly for forces veterans, we need to focus on ex-prisoners, drug and alcohol dependency, family breakdowns, domestic abuse, uncertain and fluctuating employment and income, and, of course, sort out the welfare system.   Unfortunately, I don’t see any sign that this country is about to start doing any of those things.

In the absence of action on a wider scale, we need to do what we can here in Wokingham.  That means agreeing this strategy and acting on it, because it could make a difference locally.  But as I say, no-one should be under any illusion that it is going to solve homelessness or rough sleeping.”

The council chamber voted unanimously for the recommendation. 

We moved onto council tax and in particular the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2020/21 which you may remember last year was brought back a second time as the first version had included child maintenance payments as income in it when making assessments.  My colleague Cllr David Hare proposed an amendment to the recommendation which was

that when reviewing the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2021/22 the disregard of the whole amount of carers’ allowance be included as an option.” 

Currently part of the carer’s allowance is included as income during assessment.  I personally feel quite strongly about this because carer’s allowance is just £66.15 a week as it is.  Carers are actually saving the state money by freeing up part of the health service.  Many carers have given up their jobs in order to care for a loved one which is a 24/7 job.  Cllr Shirley Boyt from the Labour party, herself having been a carer for a number of years, made a very moving speech explaining the implications of what the original recommendation was.  We would have loved to have removed the carers allowance inclusion this year, but it needs to go through a judicial review and out to consultation meaning that the council tax bills would not go out on time.  Many of you may be happy about that, but it would put a huge hole in the council’s finances so the proposal was to fix this problem for next year.  The ruling group agreed to the amendment and the item was passed. 

The next item was Declaring a Climate Emergency Initial Action Plan.  The recommendation that we were asked to vote on began with “That Council approves the Climate Emergency Action Plan.”  I contacted the Executive Member for Climate Emergency earlier in the week to ask that the word ‘initial’ be put into the recommendation because we could not recognise this as a complete document at this stage, which he duly agreed to do.  My speech on this item is as follows:

“I would like to take the opportunity to thank this council chamber for unanimously voting for declaring a climate emergency.  This will be one of the most important decisions we will ever have made.  I would also like to thank you Cllr Murray for agreeing to the change in recommendation at my request.  I also want to pass on my thanks to the officers and Rhian Hayes in particular for all the hard work they’ve put in to producing what we see before us – an update on what is a work in progress.  

This is a momentous job and some of the ideas in this action plan have legs.  It’s a really good start.  But it is just a start and whilst I appreciate this is a living document that will evolve, there’s still a lot more work that needs to be done before the first draft can be published.  There are still conversations to be had as to the scope of this document, how we scrutinise the actions we’re proposing, but most importantly, will it actually work. 

Currently, the document does not contain a carbon budget.  This is an estimate of the carbon savings for each of these initiatives.  When all added up, will they result in us being a carbon neutral borough?  My fear at the moment is that, whilst there are some really great ideas, we’re just scratching the surface.  Some tough choices will have to be made that aren’t going to be popular if we’re truly serious about this, but I don’t see much evidence of that yet.  I am more than happy to be proved wrong and find out that these actions will reach carbon neutrality, but until we have that carbon budget, how will we know? 

The governance and scrutiny structure also needs tightening.  It was stated in the local paper at the beginning of the month in a feature piece about this very document that the cross-party working group had written this document.  We haven’t.  At the point of that article being printed, we had only had a meeting to agree terms of reference and throw a few ideas forward to be considered.  We saw the first draft copy 2 days after the news article had been printed.  The working group needs much more of a handle of the steer of this than it currently does.  We also are yet to debate changes to the overview and scrutiny function of this council in order to accommodate this climate emergency agenda.  We currently do not have the capacity to scrutinise the actions coming out of this plan.  And with an initial three-year budget of £50 million, this needs careful scrutiny. 

I look forward to when, in July, this item is brought back to council, and ready, having addressed many of the points I’ve made, for us to properly consider whether we commit to it.”

There were a number of speeches made and there appeared to be some misinterpretation that all opposition councillors were voting against this item.  One of the councillors from the ruling party stood up in a moment of anger and expressed his anger at the opposition.  My colleague Cllr Stephen Conway calmed things by explaining that the Lib Dems would vote for it, and of course we want to do everything we can to tackle the climate emergency, but we had to express our thoughts on the journey thus far and provide constructive challenge to ensure the best possible outcome. 

Next up was the item Changes To The Constitution which was split into two part.  The second part were minor changes that needed to be done and we all voted for, but the first part was a little more controversial.  It was proposed to change the full council meetings to start even earlier than they do now.  The speech I gave is as follows:

“I am going to start by repeating the words from my closing speech to the Equalities motion last year.  Look at the diverse society out there that we represent.  And now look around this council chamber.  Why are we not reflecting that diversity?  There are too many barriers in the way. 

I appreciate that there is not going to be a solution to the matter of meeting start times that suits everybody.  However, bringing meeting times forward will only make it harder for those of us that are already underrepresented.  I will probably sound very selfish by stating that I find it incredibly difficult to get to the evening meetings we have here on time, especially the committee meetings that start at the earlier time being proposed tonight.  However, I don’t know how many other mothers there are in this council chamber of primary school aged children, but given that we’re in short supply, maybe I need to be a little bit selfish on this matter and make that minority voice heard. 

As a parent of very young children, children who cannot be left without a responsible adult, I am trying to juggle my role as a representative of my residents, with being the best mother I possibly can.  I am also reliant on my husband returning from work before I can then leave to come out to evening meetings.  We do not have local family that can help us in this regard.  I love the role that I do at this council.  I am truly honoured to have this opportunity to speak up for my residents, to scrutinise policy, to suggest policy even.  Why make that even harder for those of us that are already in the minority? 

I know that committees start at the earlier time proposed, but they didn’t always.  They too used to start at 7:30 even as recently as 2017, but that’s been changed making it harder for many of us.  As such, I would request that the constitution review working group would move the times of committees in line with the current full council meeting times, not the other way round as is being proposed.  I know that these meetings finish late and we’re making important decisions, but the difference of half an hour at the end of the meeting is minimal in this regard.  Putting up more barriers to diversity is not a solution for a problem that doesn’t really exist.  It creates a far worse problem.  If it really is that much of a problem then we should be considering changing the structure of these meetings in another way. 

There has been no equality impact assessment done for this proposed change.  In fact there is no evidence of how minority groups have been considered in this regard and it is the council’s responsibility as part of the public sector equality duty to evidence how protected characteristics have been considered when making its decisions.  I would also suggest that it is not solely down to the decision of the current elected membership of this council.  There are members of the public who are prospective candidates.  Have we consulted with the public? 

For many of you, this change would be a nice to have, not a need to have.  It doesn’t really matter one way or another to you.  Please consider those of us that it really does matter to.  Those of us that want to be good parents and give a voice to our residents.  Do not put up more barriers to diversity in this council chamber.  I am urging you to please vote against the recommendation for making council meeting times earlier.”

There was a shift in mood after this.  I went to the back of the chamber to fill up my water at the water cooler and a member of the ruling group approached me and whispered that he agreed with everything I said and had made up his mind not to support the recommendation.  Then various members of both the ruling group and opposition parties stood up and spoke in support of what I’d said.  The recommendation fell as a result with very few members supporting it.  I am very grateful that the council chamber showed compassion over this and I extend my thanks to all those members who were supportive. 

Next up was member’s questions.  I asked “What mandatory training are social workers in adult social care and children’s social care required to do on domestic violence?”  The response I got from the Executive member for Children’s Services I will give more detail on when I get the minutes from the meeting, but to give an overview, there is a bespoke 1-day course for all social workers.  This covers a range of elements including harassment, stalking, violence and domestic abuse.  There are also a range of non-mandatory e-learning courses that social workers can do.  I followed up by stating that perhaps the non-mandatory training should be mandatory and by asking if the mandatory training was also being done by locum social workers given the high percentage of them in our teams.  This would require a written response because she didn’t know the answer. 

We then moved onto ward questions, where I asked the following question:

“Molly Millars business estate is in my ward.  Molly Millars business estate, the way things are going, will probably no longer be a business estate.  It is a core employment area for the borough, but through permitted development laws, offices are gradually being converted to residential units.  For the benefit of the public, permitted development laws allow developers to convert office space to residential without planning permission from the local authority.  There are benefits to having residential properties so close to public transport links and town centre amenities, but by bi-passing the local planning authority for permission, we are all left in a situation where flats are provided without consideration for amenities such as school provision, doctors surgeries, no affordable housing has to be provided, no CIL money has to be provided, the list goes on.  What is the point in producing a local plan where we designate core employment areas and consider the infrastructure that that entails, when this law exists to override that?  I have already contacted John Redwood to help lobby for a change in the law, and I would like to know if you too will join in this fight and help protect our residents?”

The executive member for planning completely agreed with me and has been contacted by John Redwood.  Moving forward he has promised to work with me on this. 

Molly Millars Lane – Wokingham

Normally we move onto the final 3 items at this stage in the proceedings: Statements by the leader of the council, executive members and deputy executive members, and Statement from council owned companies and finally Motions.  Normal proceedings are that council meetings end at 10:30 but can be extended to 11pm by way of a vote.  My colleague proposed extending the meetings in order to get to the motions, but the ruling group voted against.  I am frustrated because there are some very important motions that needed to be debated and voted upon, particularly the first one which is about the council’s response to the Heathrow expansion consultation.  This will now move to the March full council agenda. 

It’s clear that the fact that we can’t get through a full agenda in the allotted time for the second full council meeting in a row now demonstrates that something is not right with the structure of these meetings.  I don’t have the answer right now, but discussions need to be had because we cannot continue to ignore important issues, such as the ones presented in the motions to council. 

Cleaner and Greener

Community Clean Up Day – photograph courtesy of Tony Johnson

I’ve been a little bit quiet with my blog of late and for that I can only apologise.  The last one I wrote was during the school summer holidays.  I have very young children, so once school restarted in September, I had a mountain of work to catch up on as I spent much of the summer holidays entertaining them.  Things started to calm down by half term, and I spent a lovely few days away with my family, only to return and spend 2 days in hospital.  The excruciating pain half way down my chest after many tests transpired to be a fish bone stuck in my oesophagus.  The procedure to remove it (an endoscopy), despite having sedation, was probably one of the worst experiences of my life and I spent the next couple of days feeling very sorry for myself. No sooner had I recovered and a general election was called.  And the rest, as they say, is history. 

So much has happened in the last few months with regards to my role as a local councillor, that I have decided to write a series of shorter blog posts, as there’s just so much to write about.  This one I’m focusing on the cleaner and greener aspect of the council’s role. 

One of the things I’m really keen to help facilitate further is active travel, i.e. walking and cycling, to get to one’s destination, and one of the prohibitors (note I said ‘one of’) is the fact that so much of the vegetation is growing over and covering our footpaths. 

I took a couple of walks around the ward I represent with an officer from the Localities team at the council; one walk round the east side of the ward and another round the west side.  The aim was to identify problem areas and discuss solutions.  There is a legal requirement for vegetation to be removed should it be blocking the highway, which includes footpaths, but vegetation isn’t always on WBC land.  Where it is on WBC land, Tivoli is the current contractor responsible for maintaining and cutting it back as part of the grass cutting contract.  (It is under another contract, street cleansing, when the problem is in alleyways).  Where it isn’t on WBC land however, it is up to the land owner to maintain and cut back. 

During these walks, we identified several areas that were WBC owned land and needed some attention, and the localities officer soon got these dealt with.  Of particular note was a bush along Sirius Close that had brambles so long, they were covering the footpath and into the road.  The path was not usable.  However, within 24 hours, the contractor had this cut right back.  Please note the picture below was taken from several weeks before that a resident had taken.  By the time it was brought to our attention it was far worse. 

In October of last year, I had the opportunity as part of the council’s Overview and Scrutiny function to scrutinise the Tivoli contract alongside several other councillors.  I raised a few points, but the key thing I wanted to highlight is that whilst the grass cutting this last year has been for the most part very good and proactive, the vegetation cutting back has been more reactive.  Some areas we noticed on our walk arounds had been dealt with, but it was too hit and miss.  There is an opportunity for residents to report vegetation overgrowth through the council’s website, (, and I do urge residents to do so, but I believe this should be a last resort, and the service much more proactive, and hope that this will be the case next season. 

When it comes to vegetation that is not council owned, the land owner must maintain it.  For the most part, land owners do, but not everyone does, and when it is blocking access to footpaths and roads, it does sometimes need some intervention.  The council can send a letter to the land owner requesting the vegetation be cut back.  Should this still not result in the work being done, they can write again stating that if it’s not done, the council’s contractors will do it and the bill sent to the land owner.  However, I would rather this was a last resort, particularly as in some instances, the land owner could have personal circumstances that make this harder for them.  A simple knock on the door may be all that’s required.  I’m certainly more than happy to give a hand to any of my neighbours if they need it, as I’m sure most of us would. 

Whilst walking round the east side of my ward, one of the big problems I wanted to highlight to the localities officer, is how some footpaths are narrowed by years and years of detritus building up.  I had received an email from a wheelchair user earlier that week mentioning that she could not use the footpath along the side of Finchampstead Road opposite the pub from Eastheath Avenue to Molly Millars Lane.  It was simply not wide enough anymore.  The problem was that cleaning this up was outside of the contract we have and would require additional money.  Getting hold of that money when the council is stretched financially would prove to be a challenge.  The officer and I came up with a more community based solution – Wokingham Community Clean Up. 

A very narrow Finchampstead Road footpath – photograph courtesy of Tony Johnson

On Sunday 13th October, with the assistance of the Evendons and Town NAG (Neighbourhood Action Group), a large group of residents came to help and we cleared away as much of the detritus as we could manage.  I am truly amazed at the amount of support and hard work people put in, particularly at 10am on a drizzly Sunday morning (when we anticipated the road would be at its quietest).  We even organised a second one for November to continue the work we started.  It was tough going because root systems had effectively formed a carpet across part of the path, but we are proud of what we achieved, and the idea has been picked up by Wokingham Without Parish Council who have arranged their own community clean up day.  I hope that other communities across the borough will also take this idea forward.  Not only does it help make our footpaths easier to use, it’s a great way to meet others in the area, plus it feels good to get stuck in, and of course enjoy a drink in the pub afterwards with everyone (it was noted that we effectively cleared a path to the pub 😊). 

A much wider footpath – photograph courtesy of Tony Johnson

What I am conscious of though is that this doesn’t happen again.  I’ve met with the contract owners to understand how the path had gotten into this state and what we were going to do to ensure we’re not in the same place in a few years.  This falls under the street cleansing contract which is coming to an end, and a new contract (with a new contractor) is beginning in April 2020.  It was identified that whilst street cleansing was taking place, if the machines had not been able to reach a part of the footpath due to vegetation being overgrown, they simply went around the vegetation, missing out the detritus on the footpath, but then didn’t let anyone know.  Years of this has resulted in the problem I described above.  As part of the new contract, if vegetation prohibits them from reaching a section of footpath, there will be a reporting function that means WBC are made aware and then Tivoli can deal with the overgrown vegetation.  It has simply been a case up until this point of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is up to.  I have been assured that going forward this will no longer be the case. 

Do please use the council’s reporting tool (link above) to report any problems with overgrown vegetation, but should you feel that the problem hasn’t been resolved, or if you want to make suggestions/feedback about the service and/or highlight anything further, you can always get in touch with me.  Whilst I live in the ward and report what I can, I won’t pick up on everything.  And if anyone wants to organise a community clean up day, do let me know and I will help facilitate, and if I’m available, will come with my shovel and gardening gloves to get stuck in. 

A Million Metres

Running an obstacle course race a few years ago

This blog post isn’t directly about my role on the council, however, it is loosely related to the climate change emergency we have just declared, and I felt benefited from a bit of explanation. 

I’ll take you back to approximately 9 years ago when I took up running after giving birth to my first son.  I started running for a couple of reasons: I wanted to lose the baby weight, and I wanted to deal with my mental health as I was struggling with depression.  I like exercise classes, but I’m quite a goal driven person, and wanted to target something, so signed up to a half marathon.  Plus, I could run when it suited me rather than to someone else’s timetable which fitted in perfectly with a new baby.  I quickly caught the running bug!

Fast forward a few years and I became a British Athletics qualified leader in running, and have coached lots of ladies for a range of distances (from complete beginner through to half marathon distance) through local firm Elite Conditioning.  I have loved being involved with this fantastic company who have inspired me and many other local women. 

In the lead up to the by-election campaign in February this year, I decided to take some time out from coaching as I was trying to keep a lot of plates spinning, but I carried on running for myself and in March, did the London Landmarks Half Marathon.  That was the last time I ran until the summer holidays.  Despite lots of people warning me, I stopped looking after myself, no longer finding the time to do what I loved, that had the added benefit of keeping me physically and mentally well.  I don’t want this to put anyone off considering standing for council, because believe me, it’s a real privilege to do this role, but should you find yourself in this position, don’t let the role consume you. 

I decided during the summer holidays that I needed to find a better balance and was thinking of how to motivate myself to get back out there again.  Then, one of my friends from school gave me the perfect opportunity.  He had started something last year called the Million Metre Tribe.  The idea is to complete a million metres in whatever discipline you like over whatever time scale works for you.  It’s about setting goals, pushing yourself, but most importantly, getting out there and doing something.  Last year he rowed it.  One of his other friends took part in it last year and did 10km a day running for 100 days.  I liked the sound of that – if I started in September when the kids were back at school, I’d be done by Christmas and can indulge myself over the festive season knowing I’d earnt it. 

I discussed the challenge with an experienced running friend of mine (I say experienced, she is medal winner for Team GB no less), and she suggested that mixing up running and walking to reduce the chance of injury, so I committed myself to 1 million metres over 100 days on foot, mixing up running and walking where appropriate.  And today (8th October), I am one month in and have achieved 30% of that target so far. 

You’re probably wondering why this is relevant to the scope of this blog page, so let me explain.  The biggest challenge for me hasn’t been the physical aspect (although I do have a purple big toe), but the time commitment.  I can run a 10km in under an hour, although when you’ve been doing it several days consecutively, that sometimes is more of a struggle.  Walking obviously takes considerably longer.  What I have found though, is that whilst I have slightly less time to do my work, I’m more focussed and achieving more in that time.  But the most important change is that I’m incorporating it into my role and making active choices about how I travel to meetings.  The council offices are 2.5 km away from where I live, so a 5km round trip which is approximate 1 hour.  Other than evening meetings (I don’t feel safe walking home in the dark on my own at 11pm at night), I almost exclusively walk to council meetings now, and make sure I schedule meetings that allow me the time to walk in.  I did find myself in a pickle the other day when I didn’t quite have enough time, so I ended up running to the meeting.  No one seemed too fussed that I was in this meeting with my sports clothes on, although someone did point out that the building had a shower I could use (they did say that they were just informing me and that I didn’t smell 😊).  I walked over 13km yesterday (7th October) by attending several meetings within my ward.  Rather than driving around the ward between meetings, I timed them so I could walk to each of them.   I’ve also taken to having my phone with me and as I run around the area, picking up defects/issues that I can report to the council.  It’s been a good way of keeping on top of what’s going on in the ward. 

I still have another 70 days to go, and whilst most days I love it, there is the odd occasion I question why I’m doing this.  The benefits I expected are there (the physical and mental health benefits), but the added benefit of organising myself to actively travel places and take my car off the road was one I hadn’t contemplated at the beginning of this challenge, and actually has in my mind been the biggest benefit.  I hear a lot of excuses for not doing these things, and I for one have been guilty of it myself.  There is a lot we can do as a council to help make active travel easier and I am working hard to push this agenda because we need to reduce congestion, air pollution and our carbon emissions.  But there is so much we can already do as individuals, and one of those barriers is ourselves.  For many I totally accept this won’t be possible.  My husband’s commute is quite a way away and there are no public transport services that can get him there in a timely manner.  However, he is getting ready to make the plunge into the second-hand electric vehicle market.  We are making other conscious changes in our lifestyle that are better for our planet, but this one was kind of accidental, I guess.  What I’m getting at is there’s always lots of reasons not to do something, but why not look at the things that we can do and change for the better and just go for it.  This planet will thank us. 

Should Heathrow Grow?

It has been a little while since I last wrote a blog post.  The summer holidays meant balancing my council duties with my two young boys, and of course the family holiday I desperately needed.  Now school is back in action, I’m playing catch up. 

There’s a lot going on in local politics at the moment, and the big topic is the Heathrow expansion.  I would like to give special thanks to my friend and colleague Paul Fishwick for all the research he has done regarding the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport, which I am including in this article.  Apologies for the length and detail of this article, but I hope it provides you with the facts that have helped determine my position on this. 

Heathrow Airport is already the largest UK airport with a capped 480,000 annual flights.  A third runway could mean 260,000 additional flights a year taking the total flight movements to 740,000[1], impacting on the surrounding area, including Wokingham Borough.

Why is a third runway required?

Apparently, there is an urgent need for new capacity for business travelers.  However, according to the Civil Aviation Statistics report that looked at the UK’s five largest airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stanstead and Manchester) between 2006 and 2016, the number of flights made for business at these airports has not increased.

Also, the Department for Transport (DfT) UK Aviation Forecasts (2017)[2] suggest that a new runway will make little difference to the number of flights taken for business across the UK in the future with the Transport Committee’s report (page 17) stating that “the passenger growth facilitated by a North Western Runway scheme is accounted for almost entirely by leisure passengers and international transfer passengers”.

Most flights are leisure flights, and most of these leisure flights are taken by a small number of wealthy fliers who take multiple flights each year. According to the Campaign for Better Transport, just 15% of the UK population take about 70% of all flights[3]

A bigger airport would only really serve the interests of frequent flyers, with the majority of the population paying for the consequences (of which I discuss below). 

Impact on regional airports

The Department for Transport (2017)[4] indicates that the latest forecasts suggest that regional airports will lose out from a Heathrow Expansion since, with the third runway, they will have 17 million fewer passengers by 2050 than they would without it.  This means people would be travelling further to get to larger airports like Heathrow, putting more traffic on the roads which is not only an inconvenience, but increases pollutants into the atmosphere. 

The Effect on Climate Change

The Committee on Climate Change has stated that Heathrow is already the biggest single source of greenhouse gases in the UK[5].

According to the latest Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (DBEIS[6]),  the 1990 to 2017 Greenhouse gas emissions for the UK Transport sector covers 27% which is now the largest of any sector. In addition, between 1990 and 2017 the percentage drop in greenhouse gas emissions has been a tiny 2%, and zero between the latest reporting years 2016-17. By contrast energy has reduced by 60% and waste management by 69%. The Aviation sector (Table 14) has not improved between 1990 and 2017. Adding another runway, with more flights will only make matters worse.

Heathrow’s own figures[7] show a total of 173 MtCO2 MORE carbon emitted, over 2022-2050, with the 3rd runway than without building it. The emissions could reach 25MtCO2 per year from flights alone. The increased CO2 would be as much as 9MtCO2 per year more, in the peak year (2035) than with 2 runways. The total extra CO2 from more surface access transport would be 7MtCO2 over that time period. The extra CO2 from all the construction work would be 3.7MtCO2, to build it all. The total of all that would be 173MtCO2 MORE carbon produced in total (flights, surface access + construction) than if the runway was not built. The estimates may be on the low side, as Heathrow has factored in future carbon efficiencies. Heathrow has taken no account of the fact that we now have a net zero target for 2050.

Further Developments

Since the third runway was approved in June 2018, there have been several developments in climate science and policy that make an even stronger case for withdrawing and reviewing the decision to proceed.

In December 2015, the UK – along with almost every other country in the world – has agreed to a global deal to limit global warming to “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with an aspiration to limit rises to 1.5°C. However, emissions reduction commitments currently fall well short of what is needed to achieve this aim. Even if all existing commitments were met, the world would see warming of 3 to 4.5°C – which would be catastrophic for millions of people. In this context the UK must do far more to reduce emissions.  

However, since Parliament approved the Airports National Policy Statement[8] (NPS) on 25 June 2018, several scientific and political developments have further demonstrated the incompatibility of the decision to expand Heathrow with meeting the UK’s climate goals:

  • On 28 June 2018, the Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) annual progress report to Parliament[9] warned that “the UK is not on course to meet the legally binding fourth and fifth carbon budgets” as set out in the Climate Change Act, and that much greater action is required, particularly in the transport sector. The stalled progress of the last five years was described as “now an acute concern”.
  • On 8 October, the IPCC’s special report[10] laid out in sobering clarity the catastrophic impacts of 2 degrees’ warming compared to 1.5 degrees. The report, coordinated between 2,000 climate scientists, reiterated the need for “rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems” and made clear the necessity of halving global emissions within just 12 years. 
  • The following week, the UK, Welsh and Scottish governments formally requested updated advice from the CCC regarding tightening long-term emissions reduction targets and the transition to a net zero-carbon economy, in light of the Paris Agreement.
  • On 26 November the Met Office’s UK Climate Prediction 2018[11] provided the clearest assessment yet of what the UK will experience from the changing climate: rising sea levels, increased temperatures, and changing patterns of rainfall[12].
  • On 27 November the UN’s Emissions Gap Report 2018[13] set out the gulf between action required to meet Paris goals and that so far pledged by national governments. The report outlined humanity’s current trajectory – more than 3 degrees of warming by 2100 – and the scale of action required to get back on track: a fivefold increase in ambition compared to current ambition.

Western Rail Link and Southern rail Access

As indicated in the DBEIS[14] all sectors of the economy, especially the transport sector must make deep cuts in emissions and that includes aviation. Expanding Heathrow Airport will only increase greenhouse gas emissions from more flights and road transport cars, vans, freight etc as there is no provision for expansion of the rail network to include the Western Rail Link from the Great Western railway and the Southern Access Link.

The Heathrow Airport Consultation document[15] page 4 table 2 only states “work with stakeholders to influence the delivery of the Western and Southern rail links”. That statement provides little guarantee that either of the rail accesses will be provided at any time.  

With no direct rail access to Heathrow Airport, residents living to the west and south west of the airport are more likely to drive or use a taxi, including those who live within Wokingham Borough area to get to the airport as the alternative modes are considerably lengthy and not cost effective for example via London Paddington.

Additional Housing

An expanded Heathrow Airport with an additional 123,000 jobs (currently 110,000) [16] will also put pressure on more housing development along the ‘M4 commuter corridor’ in areas such as Wokingham Borough where a recent Housing Consultation has given a 95% No to more housing[17]. Additional housing will also put pressure on the local and strategic highway network as there is no programme for the introduction of the two-rail links highlighted above.

More Air Pollution and noise

Air pollution locally is way above legal limits and gets worse towards Heathrow.  Heathrow, and the surrounding area, already suffers from illegal levels of air pollution. Dirty air already causes over 9,000 early deaths in London each year[18]. Not only will expanding Heathrow mean more flights, but more traffic on the roads from people travelling to the airport. This is likely to cause even more air pollution, including additional traffic locally which will add to the poor air quality in many parts of the borough and make the goal of Wokingham Borough becoming carbon neutral by 2030 even more difficult.

The Heathrow Expansion summary document page 26[19] states; “When public transport improvements are in place, there could be a case for introducing a congestion charge.” However, there is no time planned for the introduction of the Western and Southern Rail links and there are doubts now over the delivery of HS2.

Additional car parking

However, there are plans to construct a Southern and Northern Parkway car parks[20] within the phased development and this has been quoted as the “worlds largest car park for 50,000 vehicles”.[21] The traffic for these car parks will use the existing highway network, where Heathrow Airport are planning on improvements to create more capacity at congested locations. More traffic getting to Heathrow Airport equates to more air pollution.

Flight Paths

Already local people must endure around 1,300 noisy planes landing and taking off at Heathrow every day, many flight paths are over Wokingham.  It should be noted that this is with 2 runways with around 480,000 flights per annum. With a 3rd runway this could rise by 250,000 flights.  There are significant differences in take-offs and landings when the wind is in the ‘easterly’ half as they fly low over this area including up to midnight and from 05:30am.


Wokingham Borough Council, along with many other local authorities and the UK Government, have agreed to a Climate Emergency[22]. The details of the Climate Emergency have yet to be developed and agreed, but there is only 10 years to take drastic action and if Wokingham Borough Council are serious about Climate Change they must object to the expansion of Heathrow as you can’t be

Supporting the Climate Change Emergency and Heathrow Airport Expansion?

The two are incompatible and no amount of conditions being attached to the support of it will make a difference.  Heathrow cannot as we’ve seen from the evidence comply with the emissions conditions that would need to be attached in order to make this compatible with our commitment to climate change.  They claim they can and will proceed to build with conditional support, but it is only after it is built that we will see that they can’t meet those conditions and then it’s too late.  The only way forward is for this council to firmly state that it does not support the expansion.  Any conditions attached will just weaken that stance.  My colleagues and I (the Wokingham Liberal Democrat Group) have submitted our own response to the Heathrow consultation giving a firm ‘no.’ 





[5] Airportwatch












[17] Wokingham Borough Council meeting of the Council 18th July 2019.







I am writing this a bit bleary eyed after last night’s full council meeting.  It didn’t finish until just after 11pm, after which I was buzzing so didn’t sleep.  I will give a more detailed update on the meeting last night in a subsequent post, but wanted to take this opportunity to discuss one of the agenda items – the equalities motion. 

This was my first motion to council since I’ve been elected, and given that I’m still learning the ropes, I was a bit nervous.  If you’ve ever been in that council chamber, you’ll understand why.  It’s quite an intimidating place. 

The rules on motions are that they can only be submitted after the previous meeting has ended, and then they are debated and voted on in order of submission.  Each motion has a maximum of 30 minutes to be debated upon and the full council meeting has a maximum length (10:30pm, but with agreement from the chamber can be extended to 11pm), with motions being the last items on the agenda.  In other words, if you get to 11pm and a motion hasn’t been debated, it doesn’t get heard.  However, the motion doesn’t automatically go to the next meeting.  It has to be resubmitted to be considered.  And not all full council meetings has a place for motions in the agenda (such as the first meeting of the municipal year), so not that many motions have the opportunity to be debated and voted on. 

The motion I presented to council last night was the following:

“Local Authorities have a statutory requirement to demonstrate their compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) of the Equalities Act 2010.  This act requires Local Authorities to consider how their work affects people of different ages, disability, sex, sexual orientation, religion or beliefs, marital status, pregnancy and maternity and gender identity. Everyone that lives in, works and visits Wokingham Borough needs to have confidence that this is being done throughout the Borough.  This Council will evidence its compliance with the PSED through undertaking Equality Impact Assessments (EqIA’s) when required, and ensure they are included in public reports and are easily accessible on the Council’s website.  In addition, all newly elected Members will have PSED and EqIA training as part of their induction.  Executive Members will also have to undertake PSED and EqIA training.” 

This motion is printed in the agenda and what then happens is, the Mayor asks who is the proposer and seconder.  In this case the proposer was myself and the seconder was John Halsall the leader of the council.  I sent the motion to the other parties and the independent councillors several weeks ago to let them know about it and give us the chance to discuss (and tweak if necessary), to increase the chances of it gaining cross party support.  For this to pass, I needed the Conservatives to vote for it as they have the majority.  When John said he was happy with it, I asked him to second it to demonstrate that commitment.  Both he and I had spent time with officers at the council to ensure that what I was proposing could be acted upon – motions cannot be just words; they have to be practical as well. 

Once it’s been established who is proposing and seconding a motion, the proposer gets to speak for 5 minutes.  The below is my speech:

“I got involved in politics as a result of what happened at Grenfell Tower.  Innocent people lost their lives due to poor political decisions.  This ignited a desire in me to want to stand up for people in our community who are often overlooked by our political class.  People who are often seen as the minority. 

I am fortunate to have my Grandad.  My Grandad is 96 years young and fit and healthy, except for his poor eyesight.  He is registered visually impaired.  Every Tuesday I take my Grandad out to Morrisons in Woking where he lives to get lunch and do his shopping.  As such, I know the visual and physical cues he uses to navigate safely. 

When the Wokingham Town marketplace reopened last year, it was immediately obvious to me that something was wrong due to the experience I have with my Grandad.  This led me to investigate and I discovered that people with visual impairment had not been fully considered throughout all stages of the process when designing the marketplace.  In fact, not all stages of the process were fully documented from an equalities perspective, and as such, there have been a number of issues raised regarding safety for people with protected characteristics.  These concerns are being investigated by the council, and I welcome improvements that address these concerns, but we should not be retrospectively considering the impact on vulnerable residents. 

The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, requires public authorities to have due regard to a number of equality considerations when exercising their functions. 

As part of the PSED, Local Authorities must evidence their compliance with the Equalities Act.  An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) is an analysis of a proposed organisational policy, or a change to an existing one, which assesses whether the policy has a disparate impact on persons with protected characteristics.  Assessing the impact on equality is not just something the law requires, it is a positive opportunity for public authorities to ensure they make better decisions based on robust evidence and are transparent in the process.  If records are not kept it may make it more difficult, evidentially, for a public authority to persuade a court that it has fulfilled it’s duty. 

The marketplace regeneration is just one example of where this council is not fully complying.  There needs to be a shift in culture at Wokingham Borough Council.  Considering equalities is not something we should be doing because the law tells us to.  We should and must be doing this because we are here to serve ALL of our residents.  Just because the majority are catered for, does not make it acceptable to ignore the minority.  And in order to change this culture, it must start from the top.  That is every single one of us in this room.  We are the faces of this council, and we have to lead by example and be the change. 

Currently, senior officers undergo mandatory training on this subject.  There is an online training course on the council intranet which is available for elected members to partake, and I strongly urge all of us sitting in this room to do it please.  This training will also be available to all new members once they are elected.  In addition to this, training must also be given in the new councillor induction session, and at the first Executive Briefing of the municipal year.  Currently, the attendance record of elected members is available on the council’s website.  Any training undertaken by elected members will be published in the same way.    

Transparency is crucial for anything the council undertakes, but particularly when it comes to equalities.  All EqIAs will be made publicly available on the council website.  In order to determine whether an EqIA is required, an initial impact review is done, and where an EqIA is deemed not required, the initial impact review will also be made publicly available on the council website.  In addition to this, when policy papers are presented to us, currently there is an emphasis on the financial implications of the recommendation listed.  The measure of success of this or any council cannot rest on its finances.  We are dealing with people – our residents, and every policy paper put before us, also needs to include the impact on them as well, including those with protected characteristics.  We must give confidence to everyone that lives, visits and works in Wokingham Borough that we are considering everyone’s needs.  What I am proposing is a very simple and effective way of doing this.  I strongly urge this council to demonstrate it’s support to ensure that Wokingham Borough is a great place to live and an even better place to do business for everyone.”

The seconder is then given the opportunity to talk, although they can reserve comment until other members of the council have spoken.  John chose to speak in support of the motion and indicated that this is something we already do.  This frustrated me somewhat as you will see later on. 

Now the other members of the council get to speak and debate, although John tried to take this motion straight to the vote.  You might think that given it was clear this motion was going to pass, so what, go straight to the vote.  However, one of the big problems we have is that many members of that council chamber don’t get how serious an issue this is, and debating a motion in council, is an opportunity to speak to the public.  Full council is a public forum and a mouthpiece for the council, and this needed the air time to show that we’re taking resident’s concerns seriously.  The labour leader Andy Croy requested the debate continue (quite rightly) and the Mayor agreed. 

What was notable is that the only speakers on the motion came from Labour and the Lib Dems.  They highlighted a number of points, some talking from personal experience, and all discussing the negative impacts on the public many decisions have had.  One of the great comments made was by Imogen Shepherd-Dubey who said:

“Do we truly understand what it is to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes?  As an Autistic woman who is married to another woman, I can’t think that many of you have the same perspective as me, but I don’t know what it is like to be you either – so I think we are even.” 

And Caroline Smith also said:

“Discrimination of the elderly is not often up for public debate, but one thing I am sure of, is that this is something that can affect us all and cane be affecting a member of our families today, so let’s make sure they are treated equal at all times.” 

One everybody has had the chance to speak, the proposer gets a right of reply and can speak for up to 3 minutes before it goes to the vote.  This is an opportunity to address anything that has been raised in the debate and to sum up.  I made a few notes as others were speaking and addressed those, and then read the following:

“Thank you for all your comments and the debate and I’m pleased that this council appears to be behind this motion.  It’s not exactly a controversial issue.  What I am concerned about though is the reasons for this council backing the motion.  This organisation has to be more than just words and promises – it has to deliver on those as well.  My concern is that this motion will pass (and believe me, I hope it does pass), but without fully grasping why this motion is here in the first place.  So let me try and change that. 

In yesterday’s Bracknell and Wokingham news, in an article about this motion, a senior member of this chamber was quoted as saying “it is the sort of thing we are already doing anyway – we already do what the motion says so it is just reaffirming what we do.”  Rubbish!  Why would I be wasting time on something that’s not necessary.  If this council was doing this kind of thing, we wouldn’t have the problems that have been highlighted here tonight.  And it goes much deeper than this. 

Look at the diverse society out there that we represent.  And now look around this council chamber.  Why are we not reflecting that diversity?  There are too many barriers in the way.  I can say this from personal experience.  In my time so far at this council, I have on more than one occasion been spoken to in an unacceptable manner including had comments made that would not have been made to my male counterparts.  These comments only serve to belittle me.  And the thing is, we’ve heard this before in this council chamber when an outgoing leader of this council commented on the old boys network.  It feels like some of us in this council chamber are seen as a tick in the diversity box.  Believe me, we add a hell of a lot more value than that. 

This isn’t about me or the other few people in this council chamber that represent protected characteristics though.  The point I make is to demonstrate that the problems we have of equality in this council are engrained to the point that not everyone can see it.  This is a very real issue and the attitude and culture has to change to address this.  This is not about saying the right things for the press – enough of the words – do something!  I appreciate I won’t succeed in changing everyone’s minds.  But what I will have done is to bring the problem to the forefront, raise awareness and start to do something about it.  Are you with me?”

I was shaking as I read this – a combination of nerves and in some respects anger.  The vote was unanimous, and now the Head of Governance at the council has the mandate to insist the words of this motion happens.  There is a long way to go still, but we have taken a massive step in the right direction.  The final statement below is my party’s mission statement:

“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”