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.
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
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
Wed 11th – Landscape character and appearance – evidence and
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
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
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
Please see below, the statement I
made today for the inquiry.
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
“..in 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
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 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.
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.
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
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!
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
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
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!
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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) 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
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
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
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.”
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
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. Plus, the
government has given a green light to a new coalmine in Cumbria. 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.
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.
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 www.libdemspointing.co.uk 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 https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/report-problems/
(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
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.
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
And now for something completely
different – Lib Dems not pointing at something for a change.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
“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.
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
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
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, (https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/report-problems/),
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
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
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 😊).
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.
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
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.
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
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,
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) 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”.
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.
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)
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
The Committee on Climate Change has stated that Heathrow is
already the biggest single source of greenhouse gases in the UK.
to the latest Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (DBEIS),
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
Heathrow’s own figures 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.
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.
Parliament approved the Airports National Policy Statement
(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:
28 June 2018, the Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) annual progress report to
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
8 October, the IPCC’s special report
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.
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
26 November the Met Office’s UK Climate Prediction 2018
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.
27 November the UN’s Emissions Gap Report 2018
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
Rail Link and Southern rail Access
indicated in the DBEIS
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.
Heathrow Airport Consultation document
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.
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.
An expanded Heathrow Airport with an additional 123,000 jobs (currently 110,000)  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. 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.
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. 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
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
within the phased development and this has been quoted as the “worlds
largest car park for 50,000 vehicles”.
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
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.
Borough Council, along with many other local authorities and the UK Government,
have agreed to a Climate Emergency.
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
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.’
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.”