This is a great example of spending time and money on planning to an extend that everything else will become complicated and costly.
http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planningcontrol/planning/masterplanning/sdls/infrastructurespd/
This may well not be the fault of Wokingham Borough Council since there appear to be all sorts of other organisations they must appease but, as someone who likes to get things done, were I quote for a job and read something like that I would triple my quote for the extra admin and recheck my 'how many times you can change you mind before you pay' clause.
About seven years ago my wife and I were once members of the Wokingham Town Twinning association and we had a German man staying in our two bedroom maisonette for a long weekend.
There was a friendly openness in how we communicated and one thing was evident to the Germans. Our houses are small and we pay to much for them and none of us had bought land and self built.
Well we all think there is no land. And if there is, it will be a developer who builds an estate on it.
My in-laws once bought a plot in a new estate in Morocco. I saw the 'before' pictures and all there was was the road layout. After two years they were told a if they did not build the house they would have to sell the plot back. So they got on with it and the family designed their new home. In the end they never moved there since the mansion they had built was not near the town centre where they worked so they rented it out. I went to see the estate once and it was fantastic. People had put a lot of thought and creativity into their homes.
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
Public involvement at a public meeting.
Have you ever been involved in a conversation where you have conflicting views at the beginning and end up agreeing at the end?
How many rounds of communications does it take.
I would say that most of the time the 'oh I hadn't considered that' comes out in the first few exchanges. Once your get past about 10 each your not going to agree.
I was at a planning meeting at Wokingham Borough Council (just to see how inclusive I felt) and, knowing that the people talking in front of me are mostly in regular communication and had possibly discussed many of the matters before thought the consultation might take more of a 'Question Time' like approach.
But from what I can tell, if you are an objector, you must apply to get a share of a total of 3 minutes to object. Your slot will come after the parish council (who will probably object and say something similar to you to avoid loosing your vote next year).
Then the people supporting the project get to say their bit, the last word as it were, which may well have been altered to mitigate things you might have said.
And then . . . the 9 members of the planning comity who are selected by the Tory leader David Lee chat about it with the main representatives of the employed council.
As a sceptic I obviously suspect that there is some sort of agreement in advance. However, even without the pre-discuss, if there are any stand out questionable observation's the consensus seems to be that you have to sit there and bite your tongue.
I used to think it how silly it is in parliament when the back bencher's voice their disagreement with various animal noises, now I am not so sure. Our council meetings are stuffy, formulaic and... well... odd. Perhaps it is just a case of the 'no one knew how we should behave and therefore it evolved to whatever makes the leaders would like the most.
If you were to look at a top down view of a development on a field that appears more densely populated than the surrounding estates and the building control manager says, "You can see how it is in keeping with the rest of the area." and then rolls on while you at range try to count dots per area. What do you do to alert the 9 and those around you that you disagree? If most of the public in the room also feel that way perhaps 'the 9' should consider this a point worthy of expansion.
As a sceptic I obviously suspect that there is some sort of agreement in advance. However, even without the pre-discuss, if there are any stand out questionable observation's the consensus seems to be that you have to sit there and bite your tongue.
I used to think it how silly it is in parliament when the back bencher's voice their disagreement with various animal noises, now I am not so sure. Our council meetings are stuffy, formulaic and... well... odd. Perhaps it is just a case of the 'no one knew how we should behave and therefore it evolved to whatever makes the leaders would like the most.
If you were to look at a top down view of a development on a field that appears more densely populated than the surrounding estates and the building control manager says, "You can see how it is in keeping with the rest of the area." and then rolls on while you at range try to count dots per area. What do you do to alert the 9 and those around you that you disagree? If most of the public in the room also feel that way perhaps 'the 9' should consider this a point worthy of expansion.
I would like to suggest that people at public meetings have red and green card sticks. And if something is said that you strongly agree with you put your green stick up. If a statement is disagreeable you put the red one up. This will not disrupt the all important flow, but at least if there is an apparent consensus amongst the public on an issue.
Otherwise Wokingham Borough Council "Have your say" simply does not exist.
Otherwise Wokingham Borough Council "Have your say" simply does not exist.
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Police commissioner anyone?
Is there anyone who has 'been on the force in the Thames Valley for 20+ years" willing to be the Thames Valley Police Commissioner?
Academics creating paperwork and Soldiers who became business men. Sure, get these people in for a day to throw some ideas about but don't let them lead it.
The Police will not differ from the NHS on this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2012/sep/11/more-doctors-boards-improves-performance.
More info here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19478552
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
So.Who to appoint to deliberate over Wokingham Regeneration contract?
I would say someone of impeccable trust, uncorrectable.
But what would I know?
Matt Deegan...
Specialties
INVESTMENTS: On / Offshore, Funds, Managing risk, Taxation, Trusts & Estate Planning
Penned the £100m deal and...
Alistair Corrie
(Tax Advisor from Risley)
Signed it.
I always though tax advisers and Private Banking Business Managers were crooks.
Lets just get something straight. Their job is to help someone with a lot of money, keep more for them and perhaps their family than the government think they should, meaning regular tax payers have to make up the difference. Matt and Alistair then take their cut out of our loss.
Sounds to me like an advert for what is wrong with the UK and an unlikely philanthropist.
Wokingham owned companies. Open for business. Not scrutiny. Wokingham Regeneration or Development?
Wokingham Borough Council January
2012 ITEM NO: 61.00 TITLE Audit Commission Annual Plan 2011/12
"Has concluded that there is Risks with the mismanagement and potential misreporting by the use of council owned companies."
"The town centre redevelopment is being funded by the Council at a time of economic uncertainty. There is a risk that failure to deliver the anticipated returns will have an impact on your financial resilience"
"At present the progress of the Transformation Programme does not take place in a public meeting. There is a risk that existing reporting lines do not enable effective scrutiny of progress by members outside of executive and other interested stakeholders."
July 2012 in the previous scrutiny meeting the minutes state
"Panel noted the four principles of good scrutiny as identified by the Centre for Public Scrutiny. With regards to the principle 'to reflect the voice and concerns of the public and its communities', Members questioned how the public could be involved in scrutiny. they were informed that they could attend pubic scrutiny meetings, ask questions at meetings, suggest topics for review or could pass their concerns on to their local councillor. Agendas for public meetings were also sent to the local media."
Freedom of Information request on the £100m Wilson Bowden Wokingham Regeneration contract rejected on commercial grounds.
(update. This is now contested and will go to formal internal review before it can be escalated outside of the local council.)
(Update. Some Tory councillors have defended the secrecy of the Wokingham Regeneration contract between Wokingham Enterprises Ltd and Wilson Bowden Developments because businesses do not like their tenders scrutinised Since Wokingham Enterprises Ltd is not the actual council but a sub company (with exclusive use of our money) it is fine for it to be outside the law that demands open public scrutiny for council expenditure and contracts..
I would like to remind the councillors the laws around transparency of public spending are there for a reason. Using a business owned by the council does not change whose money can be abused. You have chosen to fail on ethics and use an untested loophole. Selecting ones own scrutinisers, no mater how many, is not acceptable.
I am also aware that the council are supposed to provide the information that does not limit a businesses competitive edge but is not outweighed by public public interest.
19 October 2012 Wokingham Enterprises Limited is to be put into a Dormant state.
£6k payment to Cllr David Lee's selected councillors deemed acceptable, although they did not apply for the role against better applicants who may have been willing to do so for free as part of the community.
Request to ask if the above situation is acceptable at the Scrutiny meeting for 11th September denied as too late and too vague. (amendment, have agreed to bring up at the next one)
Update Question asked to the executive of Wokingam Borough Council
Deeply concerned about just how 'comfortable' the establishment have become. When their answer to to ethical concerns met with 'within the rules'. Who makes the rules?
References
The audit (makes some interesting reading). Pages 6-10.
Who scrutinises the Conservatives decisions Sheer madness.
How are they supposed to operate? Not in my experience. We should submit questions on the fly in response to glossed over items.
LibDem councillors complain publicly about the problem. Not all willing to commit to acting on it by signing a petition though?
Please do something
Sign the petition! And tell your neighbours. (this is a link too)
In my dealing with Wokingham Borough Council not questioning their integrity, but instead my expectation that their actions should be open to scrutiny so that their integrity can not be questioned, I have felt politely misdirected. Rarely ignored, for which I am grateful, but feel I have met too many beurocratic defence systems to work within the system.
If you believe in conservative values and became a Councillor only to find out that you have simply empowered a secretive clique I would ask that you act on it in the only way you can. Stand down for a bi-election. I'm sure if you talk to the other parties they would help you regain your seat under another banner.
One final push. Please.
If you agree can you please contact your local ward representative and get our council to be 'actually open and accountable in regards to contracts managed through our three companies. It is still our money.
Copy / Paste
Subject.
Do you feel the executive Wokingham borough council is suitably scrutinised?
Body
Dear Cllr
I am one of your constituents.
I am deeply concerned about the way that the non-executive directors of our council owned companies have been selected and are being remunerated. Also the large sums of our money that they are able to spend apparently without public scrutiny.
One example being the £100m contract with Wilson Bowden homes which the National Audit Office was concerned will not represent a viable investment. The National Audit office has also expressed concerns about how the companies can be used for misreporting.
Can you please request a public consultation referenced in the local press for measures that should be taken to stop these companies from being capable of facilitating inappropriate use of public funds.
Also can you please express your personal views on the matter.
Kind Regards
Find your ward representative here.
-------------------------------------------------
Update 2014/01/30
I have had a tenuous relationship with Wokingham Borough Council regarding our right to film public meetings. They have consistently blocked the filming of the South Wokingham Development in relation to highways. A Freedom of information request has confirmed that the negotiations surrounding the S106 contributions have not been calculated to construct an average contribution per dwelling area. These leaves a lot of leeway with secretive people.
Eric pickles guidelines are clear on this. Let the bloggers in. If there is misrepresentation then that can be dealt with. The evidence of one recorded meeting was needed when Cllr Baker lied in an outburst at a previously blocked Southern Wokingham Highways meeting and I accused him of in in an e-mail exchange in which the Wokingham Times was included. He threatened to sue me, I played along and then provided the evidence, not before asking the leader of the opposition who was present to vouch for me on twitter. She vouched for Cllr Baker!
So we can see why the ability to film public meetings in the manner linked below is essential to scuppering dishonesty at Wokingham Borough Council.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-press-freedom-law-to-open-up-town-halls
Wokingham Borough Council felt that this annotation is was excessive and blocked filming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh1lljpYufs&list=UU2OSu9GDwgroe3tgjc8D9NQ&feature=c4-overview
They council could film it themselves. Cllr Baker lied (again) that I was asked to tender for the work over a year ago on a public forum of the old Wokingham Times site. I offered to purchase the kit if they would film it.
They have made up rules that someone can film as long as the film the whole thing put it all online and do not edit it. Only the BBC does not do that? They made that up and 3 hours of waffle is hardly transparent either. Not to mention that Cllrs are signed up to a code of conduct to support transparency. Yet the annotation is to ask about Fracking because councillors will not be transparent about how they will act on that.
I'll cut to the chase.
People can not be bothered to govern without cashing in a little it would seem. If people will not volunteer out of the goodness of their hearts then we may as well have the gamesters doing it.
But people poor people are starting their lives in too much debt now. For all our innovation. That is why we need to make life harder for the crooks and keep their take modest.
Start with transparency. Make them commit in advance about Fracking (Yes, No or public referendum) and make them allow people to turn up and film as they see fit at public meeting just as they can at any other public event.
Just tell them to make promises using www.NoCheapPromises.org
"Has concluded that there is Risks with the mismanagement and potential misreporting by the use of council owned companies."
"The town centre redevelopment is being funded by the Council at a time of economic uncertainty. There is a risk that failure to deliver the anticipated returns will have an impact on your financial resilience"
"At present the progress of the Transformation Programme does not take place in a public meeting. There is a risk that existing reporting lines do not enable effective scrutiny of progress by members outside of executive and other interested stakeholders."
July 2012 in the previous scrutiny meeting the minutes state
"Panel noted the four principles of good scrutiny as identified by the Centre for Public Scrutiny. With regards to the principle 'to reflect the voice and concerns of the public and its communities', Members questioned how the public could be involved in scrutiny. they were informed that they could attend pubic scrutiny meetings, ask questions at meetings, suggest topics for review or could pass their concerns on to their local councillor. Agendas for public meetings were also sent to the local media."
Freedom of Information request on the £100m Wilson Bowden Wokingham Regeneration contract rejected on commercial grounds.
(update. This is now contested and will go to formal internal review before it can be escalated outside of the local council.)
(Update. Some Tory councillors have defended the secrecy of the Wokingham Regeneration contract between Wokingham Enterprises Ltd and Wilson Bowden Developments because businesses do not like their tenders scrutinised Since Wokingham Enterprises Ltd is not the actual council but a sub company (with exclusive use of our money) it is fine for it to be outside the law that demands open public scrutiny for council expenditure and contracts..
I would like to remind the councillors the laws around transparency of public spending are there for a reason. Using a business owned by the council does not change whose money can be abused. You have chosen to fail on ethics and use an untested loophole. Selecting ones own scrutinisers, no mater how many, is not acceptable.
I am also aware that the council are supposed to provide the information that does not limit a businesses competitive edge but is not outweighed by public public interest.
19 October 2012 Wokingham Enterprises Limited is to be put into a Dormant state.
£6k payment to Cllr David Lee's selected councillors deemed acceptable, although they did not apply for the role against better applicants who may have been willing to do so for free as part of the community.
Request to ask if the above situation is acceptable at the Scrutiny meeting for 11th September denied as too late and too vague. (amendment, have agreed to bring up at the next one)
Update Question asked to the executive of Wokingam Borough Council
Deeply concerned about just how 'comfortable' the establishment have become. When their answer to to ethical concerns met with 'within the rules'. Who makes the rules?
References
The audit (makes some interesting reading). Pages 6-10.
Who scrutinises the Conservatives decisions Sheer madness.
How are they supposed to operate? Not in my experience. We should submit questions on the fly in response to glossed over items.
LibDem councillors complain publicly about the problem. Not all willing to commit to acting on it by signing a petition though?
Please do something
Sign the petition! And tell your neighbours. (this is a link too)
In my dealing with Wokingham Borough Council not questioning their integrity, but instead my expectation that their actions should be open to scrutiny so that their integrity can not be questioned, I have felt politely misdirected. Rarely ignored, for which I am grateful, but feel I have met too many beurocratic defence systems to work within the system.
If you believe in conservative values and became a Councillor only to find out that you have simply empowered a secretive clique I would ask that you act on it in the only way you can. Stand down for a bi-election. I'm sure if you talk to the other parties they would help you regain your seat under another banner.
One final push. Please.
If you agree can you please contact your local ward representative and get our council to be 'actually open and accountable in regards to contracts managed through our three companies. It is still our money.
Copy / Paste
Subject.
Do you feel the executive Wokingham borough council is suitably scrutinised?
Body
Dear Cllr
I am one of your constituents.
I am deeply concerned about the way that the non-executive directors of our council owned companies have been selected and are being remunerated. Also the large sums of our money that they are able to spend apparently without public scrutiny.
One example being the £100m contract with Wilson Bowden homes which the National Audit Office was concerned will not represent a viable investment. The National Audit office has also expressed concerns about how the companies can be used for misreporting.
Can you please request a public consultation referenced in the local press for measures that should be taken to stop these companies from being capable of facilitating inappropriate use of public funds.
Also can you please express your personal views on the matter.
Kind Regards
Find your ward representative here.
-------------------------------------------------
Update 2014/01/30
I have had a tenuous relationship with Wokingham Borough Council regarding our right to film public meetings. They have consistently blocked the filming of the South Wokingham Development in relation to highways. A Freedom of information request has confirmed that the negotiations surrounding the S106 contributions have not been calculated to construct an average contribution per dwelling area. These leaves a lot of leeway with secretive people.
Eric pickles guidelines are clear on this. Let the bloggers in. If there is misrepresentation then that can be dealt with. The evidence of one recorded meeting was needed when Cllr Baker lied in an outburst at a previously blocked Southern Wokingham Highways meeting and I accused him of in in an e-mail exchange in which the Wokingham Times was included. He threatened to sue me, I played along and then provided the evidence, not before asking the leader of the opposition who was present to vouch for me on twitter. She vouched for Cllr Baker!
So we can see why the ability to film public meetings in the manner linked below is essential to scuppering dishonesty at Wokingham Borough Council.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-press-freedom-law-to-open-up-town-halls
Wokingham Borough Council felt that this annotation is was excessive and blocked filming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh1lljpYufs&list=UU2OSu9GDwgroe3tgjc8D9NQ&feature=c4-overview
They council could film it themselves. Cllr Baker lied (again) that I was asked to tender for the work over a year ago on a public forum of the old Wokingham Times site. I offered to purchase the kit if they would film it.
They have made up rules that someone can film as long as the film the whole thing put it all online and do not edit it. Only the BBC does not do that? They made that up and 3 hours of waffle is hardly transparent either. Not to mention that Cllrs are signed up to a code of conduct to support transparency. Yet the annotation is to ask about Fracking because councillors will not be transparent about how they will act on that.
I'll cut to the chase.
People can not be bothered to govern without cashing in a little it would seem. If people will not volunteer out of the goodness of their hearts then we may as well have the gamesters doing it.
But people poor people are starting their lives in too much debt now. For all our innovation. That is why we need to make life harder for the crooks and keep their take modest.
Start with transparency. Make them commit in advance about Fracking (Yes, No or public referendum) and make them allow people to turn up and film as they see fit at public meeting just as they can at any other public event.
Just tell them to make promises using www.NoCheapPromises.org
Thursday, 2 August 2012
For a conspiracy theorist there is only one way to take this
2 August 2012 15:56
Dear Kazek
The
period for the 11/12 accounts was Wednesday 4th July to
Tuesday 31st July 2012, excepting 7th, 8th, 14th, 15th, 21st, 22nd, 28th and
29th July 2012.
This was advertised in the Wokingham Times
under statutory notices and on our website from Wednesday 20th June
2012 for 2 weeks in line with statutory requirements, a copy of the advert is
attached. In addition we have published the draft financial statements and
details of all expenditure over £500 (on a monthly basis) on our website. The
link is http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/transparency/
If you have any further information you
require about the council’s accounts other than what has been published
on our website, then as the public consultation period has ended now, I would
suggest submitting a freedom of information request.
Thanks
Claire
------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: 24 July 2012 16:18
To: Procurement;
Subject: FW: Finance and contracts
To: Procurement;
Subject: FW: Finance and contracts
Please see the email below that has been sent into Wokingham Direct.
The query is regarding something that I believe you will be able to answer. Please can you either reply directly to the customer and bcc Wokingham Direct in or send us your reply directly and we will be happy to go back to the customer.
Please be aware the customer is expecting a response within 10 working days.
Kind regards
Laurence ---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
24 July 2012
Dear Sir / Madam.
Financial and procurement and contract regulations 12.1.4.16 state For 20 days each year the Chief financial officer will make all accounts receipts available to the public
When is this?
Regards
Kazek Lokuciewski
Financial and procurement and contract regulations 12.1.4.16 state For 20 days each year the Chief financial officer will make all accounts receipts available to the public
When is this?
Regards
Kazek Lokuciewski
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Is the Wokingham Borough Councils Environmental Policy just PR?
There is a certain level of air pollution when when reached the public should be advised to act in a certain way. For example not to to strenuous activity outside. Here is the chart.
I was delighted to find that Reading Council have four permanent Air Quality monitoring stations and that they provide online access including historical data so anyone can pull up the stats. Good and bad. And there are plenty of bad. The Ozone monitoring is not in a roadside location. Which would give a fairer indication of what walking and cycling commuters are being exposed to. But at least it's sort of honest.
You can find it here. Does not look that great. Not a lot of waffle, just what is air quality and honest statistics.
http://airquality.reading.gov.uk/reading/bulletin.asp
I was able to see that NO2, Ozone and PM10 Particles freequently enter the medium risk area. It would seem only fair that these alerts are at least broadcast on local the radio and tweeted as @cleanairlondon are doing.
Now for the Wokingham version.
http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/safety/pollution/air-quality-monitoring/
Looks professional. Well written waffle. Absolutely no information or transparency.
If you open the PDF's you can see that in 2004 we gave up actually trying to reduce our local community emissions and we have chosen not to look at scope 3 which covers things like actual air quality as a result of commuting etc.
The Wokingham Borough Councils environmental policy can be found here
http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/plans/key-strategies/environmental-policy/
It includes a heart warming paragraph.
"Enhancement of the Rural and Urban Environment - as the majority of our population live in urban areas, we will continue to improve and enhance their environment, whilst protecting the rural environment wherever possible."
Can we put that on a poster in the council offices please!
It also tells us that In November 2007, we signed the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change and have a strategy. But the links go no where useful.
Luckily we have a plan. It expired in 2009 but its in here
http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/plans/key-strategies/environmental-policy/environmental-action-plan/
The web page talks the good talk 'the importance of air quality and education on it (don't worry @wokinghambc I'll do that for you. No charge) but if you go into the pdf plan it is all related to what the council does like using a green tarrif for electricity. i.e. its offices etc. Nothing to do with the main pollutant which is commuters and congestion and how we will reduce it.
I'm loosing hair here.
Well they know why. In 2004 they realized that they can't get pollution down to where they want it to be without having less people travel back and forth through the center of Wokingham. How would that tie in with the property developer conservative donors keep applying since the profit margins here are allowed to remain so high.
Indeed the 'Wokingham Regeneration' which is widely regarded as "Not what we thought you mean't when you mentioned the idea a few years back" in particular is aimed at bringing in many more commuters and residents whilst increasing the distance for many school commutes.
Residents who grew up in a Market town are left with the option to get out of become a towny and, just an inhaler on your person at all times.
I have asked wbc today about our actual air quality.
I will let you know what kind of information I get back.
Band
|
Index
|
Ozone
|
Nitrogen Dioxide
|
Sulphur Dioxide
|
Carbon Monoxide
|
PM10Particles
| ||||
8 hourly or hourly mean*
|
hourly mean
|
15 minute mean
|
8 hour mean
|
24 hour mean
| ||||||
µg m-3
|
ppb
|
µg m-3
|
ppb
|
µg m-3
|
ppb
|
mgm-3
|
ppm
|
µg m-3
| ||
Low
| ||||||||||
1
|
0-32
|
0-16
|
0-95
|
0-49
|
0-88
|
0-32
|
0-3.8
|
0.0-3.2
|
0-16
| |
2
|
33-66
|
17-32
|
96-190
|
50-99
|
89-176
|
33-66
|
3.9-7.6
|
3.3-6.6
|
17-32
| |
3
|
67-99
|
33-49
|
191-286
|
100-149
|
177-265
|
67-99
|
7.7-11.5
|
6.7-9.9
|
33-49
| |
Moderate
| ||||||||||
4
|
100-126
|
50-62
|
287-381
|
150-199
|
266-354
|
100-132
|
11.6-13.4
|
10.0-11.5
|
50-57
| |
5
|
127-152
|
63-76
|
382-476
|
200-249
|
355-442
|
133-166
|
13.5-15.4
|
11.6-13.2
|
58-66
| |
6
|
153-179
|
77-89
|
478-572
|
250-299
|
443-531
|
167-199
|
15.5-17.3
|
13.3-14.9
|
67-74
| |
High
| ||||||||||
7
|
180-239
|
90-119
|
573-635
|
300-332
|
532-708
|
200-266
|
17.4-19.2
|
15.0-16.5
|
75-82
| |
8
|
240-299
|
120-149
|
363-700
|
333-366
|
709-886
|
267-332
|
19.3-21.2
|
16.6-18.2
|
83-91
| |
9
|
300-359
|
150-179
|
701-763
|
367-399
|
887-1063
|
333-399
|
21.3-23.1
|
18.3-19.9
|
92-99
| |
Very High
| ||||||||||
10
|
360 or more
|
180 or more
|
764 or more
|
400 or more
|
1064 or more
|
400 or more
|
23.2 or more
|
20 or more
|
100 or more
| |
| 1-3 ('Low') | Effects are unlikely to be noticed, even by people who know they are sensitive to air pollution. |
| 4-6 ('Moderate') | Mild effects are unlikely to require action, but may be noticed by sensitive people. |
| 7-9 ('High') | Sensitive people may notice significant effects, and may have to take action to reduce or avoid them (for example, by reducing time spend outdoors). Asthmatics will find that their 'reliever' inhaler is likely to reverse the effects of pollution on their lungs. |
| 10 ('Very High') | The effects on sensitive people, described for 'high' levels of pollution, may worsen. |
I was delighted to find that Reading Council have four permanent Air Quality monitoring stations and that they provide online access including historical data so anyone can pull up the stats. Good and bad. And there are plenty of bad. The Ozone monitoring is not in a roadside location. Which would give a fairer indication of what walking and cycling commuters are being exposed to. But at least it's sort of honest.
You can find it here. Does not look that great. Not a lot of waffle, just what is air quality and honest statistics.
http://airquality.reading.gov.uk/reading/bulletin.asp
I was able to see that NO2, Ozone and PM10 Particles freequently enter the medium risk area. It would seem only fair that these alerts are at least broadcast on local the radio and tweeted as @cleanairlondon are doing.
Now for the Wokingham version.
http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/safety/pollution/air-quality-monitoring/
Looks professional. Well written waffle. Absolutely no information or transparency.
If you open the PDF's you can see that in 2004 we gave up actually trying to reduce our local community emissions and we have chosen not to look at scope 3 which covers things like actual air quality as a result of commuting etc.
The Wokingham Borough Councils environmental policy can be found here
http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/plans/key-strategies/environmental-policy/
It includes a heart warming paragraph.
"Enhancement of the Rural and Urban Environment - as the majority of our population live in urban areas, we will continue to improve and enhance their environment, whilst protecting the rural environment wherever possible."
Can we put that on a poster in the council offices please!
It also tells us that In November 2007, we signed the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change and have a strategy. But the links go no where useful.
Luckily we have a plan. It expired in 2009 but its in here
http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/plans/key-strategies/environmental-policy/environmental-action-plan/
The web page talks the good talk 'the importance of air quality and education on it (don't worry @wokinghambc I'll do that for you. No charge) but if you go into the pdf plan it is all related to what the council does like using a green tarrif for electricity. i.e. its offices etc. Nothing to do with the main pollutant which is commuters and congestion and how we will reduce it.
I'm loosing hair here.
Well they know why. In 2004 they realized that they can't get pollution down to where they want it to be without having less people travel back and forth through the center of Wokingham. How would that tie in with the property developer conservative donors keep applying since the profit margins here are allowed to remain so high.
Indeed the 'Wokingham Regeneration' which is widely regarded as "Not what we thought you mean't when you mentioned the idea a few years back" in particular is aimed at bringing in many more commuters and residents whilst increasing the distance for many school commutes.
Residents who grew up in a Market town are left with the option to get out of become a towny and, just an inhaler on your person at all times.
I have asked wbc today about our actual air quality.
I will let you know what kind of information I get back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)