a)    By Councillor Davey

 

This Council, in the interests of residents’ safety and in line with the ICNIRP Guidelines, will:

 

i) Actively monitor new and existing telecom masts and other “small cells” installations every 6 months to ensure they are in line with current guidelines

ii) Insist the relevant telecommunications company takes the appropriate remedial action if found to be exceeding legal limits

 

b)   By Councillor McWilliams

 

Following the closure of Phoenix Gymnastics, we lost local gymnastics provision and a community asset. RBWM has an existing commitment to having more residents more active more often and considers sport to provide physical and mental health benefits. There is demand for a new, purpose-built gymnastics facility in RBWM.

 

This Council resolves to:  

 

i) Work with existing gymnastic providers to understand the facilities that are required to meet demand, including how existing facilities can be best used

ii) Identify opportunities to work with third parties to finance, build and manage a new, purpose-built gymnastics facility

iii) Welcome a commitment in RBWM's forthcoming Sport & Leisure Strategy to support the delivery of a new, purpose-built gymnastics facility in partnership with a third party

 

c)    By Councillor Tisi

 

The government recently committed to seek an amendment to the Environment Bill, compelling water companies to reduce the impact of storm sewage overflows into our rivers. However unregulated pollution from agricultural run-off, microplastics and industrial and household chemicals, exacerbated by climate change and demand on the waste water system, is still a major threat to wildlife.

 

This Council asks that the Leader of the Council writes to:

 

ii) The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our local MPS to call for the Government to restore Environment Agency budgets to deliver the necessary oversight,

ii) The Chairperson of the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee to advocate for greater enforcement of existing regulatory powers through increasing the inspection regularity of water companies and farms and rigorously prosecuting offenders through the Environmental Audit Committee and Ofwat.

iii) The Regional Director of the National Farmers’ Union requesting clarification on the action being taken locally by farmers to prevent nutrient run-off.

(A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

Motion a

 

Councillor Davey introduced his motion. He explained that he wished to amend his motion following discussion with a number of parties, to remove the wording ‘every 6 months’. The amended motion therefore read:

 

That his Council, in the interests of residents’ safety and in line with the ICNIRP Guidelines, will:

 

i)             Actively monitor new and existing telecom masts and other “small cells” installations to ensure they are in line with current guidelines

ii)            Insist the relevant telecommunications company takes the appropriate remedial action if found to be exceeding legal limits

 

Councillor Davey explained that before Christmas he had forwarded to officers a specification sheet relating to a 5G Mast application in a neighbouring borough that showed that the antennae had the ability to generate 84,000 times the legal limit. He had requested a specification sheet before Christmas for a new 5G application validated on 14 January for Tinkers Lane, Windsor in his ward and still awaited details from the agent. He had also asked officers if he had been right in thinking that if the council accepted the telecom company’s self-certification then any liability would then fall on RBWM’s shoulders.

 

The UK used the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines to determine human safety with regards to telecoms installations. The UK National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which determined planning law, stated in Paragraph 117 that applications for an addition to an existing mast or base station must include a self-certification that the increased capacity will not exceed ICNIRP guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection. The telecom companies were allowed to self-certify their own installations and with this power they were happy to put in an application that could potentially push out 84,000 times the legal limit. He asked if this sounded ok. ICNIRP said a safe level of exposure was 1mW/cm2 for 6 minutes. The 6 minutes allowed for an engineer to approach a mast and fix a problem.

 

Councillor Davey explained that the Inverse Square law applied to normal phone masts where the power for 4G, 3G, etc dropped off over distance. However collimated microwave beams, which was how 5G worked, did not obey the inverse square law and could maintain their power intensity over miles. Unlike 3G and 4G the umbrellas of EMF were very likely to overlap, increasing the EMF smog.

 

China had a maximum legal limit 100 time lower than the UK. A civilised society that had concerns for the health and wellbeing of its residents would ensure the installations met the legal requirements and take the appropriate measurements to ensure the 5G Mast outputs were within legal limits and if found to be exceeding these limits then insist on remedial action.

 

Councillor Davey had asked officers and currently RBWM did not have the required equipment or skills sets in-house to evaluate the current 5G installations. Apparently, based on Councillor Clark’s response to his earlier question, this was because he believed officers had no power. Information Councillor Davey had read and shared with officers would seem to suggest councils ultimately had to take responsibility and do their own research. He was relieved Councillor Clark was willing to explore residents' concerns further.

 

Councillor Davey proposed that as the 5G network expanded the council should start measuring the outputs on a regular basis around the borough and ask the relevant telecom companies to make adjustments based on the council findings. Ofcom could be invited to measure for £1,000 a time in the short term and the council should look to purchase its own kit, as resources allowed and have the council’s own officers do regular checks.

 

Councillor Hill seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Hilton explained that demand for radio spectrum continued to increase, driven by the development of new technologies opening up new services and applications and allowing the use of spectrum in higher frequency bands. Against this background, some people, including Councillor Davey, had raised concerns around the safety of Electromagnetic Field emissions particularly from 5G technologies.

 

Ofcom was responsible for managing the radio spectrum and licence users. They had consulted on measures to require compliance with international guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields. Public Health England (PHE) took the lead on public health matters associated with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, and their advice to government was that Electromagnetic Field exposure should comply with the ICNIRP guidance. Guidance on enforcement was published in May 2021 and applied to licensees that were subject to an Electromagnet Field condition in their spectrum licence.

 

Ofcom’s main role with regard to Electromagnetic Field Emissions had been in measuring emission levels around mobile phone base stations. Ofcom had said that in all cases, including recent measurements near 5G-enabled base stations, they had recorded measurements well within the levels for general public exposure and that the highest level measured was approximately 1.5% of the levels identified in the commission’s guidelines. The guidance included amongst many other requirements, Electromagnetic radiation limits, assessments, record keeping and enforcement.

 

Councillor Hilton highlighted that this was therefore a highly regulated area and he did not propose that the council should take on responsibilities already assigned to statutory authorities and he would therefore not support the motion.

 

Councillor Haseler explained that he had researched the issue on the Ofcom website. He referenced extracts from the report ‘Electromagnetic field (EMF) measurements near 5G mobile phone base stations’ for April-October 2021, published in November 2021. The report contained results of 38 EMF surveys undertaken near 5G stations during that period. It was part of an ongoing programme of measurements to verify that 5G-enabled mobile base stations remained within the limits of the ICNIRP Guidelines. The report stated that 0.04% was the highest level recorded. The report explained that Ofcom had been carrying out radio frequency EMF measurements near mobile phone masts for many years and these measurements had consistently shown that that EMF levels near mobile phone stations were well within the internationally agreed levels.

 

As Councillor Hilton had referred to Public Health England and the UK Health Security Agency led on the matter. The deployment of 5G networks and the take up of 5G services was still at an early stage. The report explained that EMF measurements would continue to monitor the overall trends in the long-term including measurements in new areas and repeat measurements at a number of locations which had already been visited. It would continue to publish the measurements on the website as they became available.

 

Councillor Haseler asked if Councillor Davey had researched what equipment and training would be needed for council officers to undertake the tests, although he did not see the need when Ofcom already did so.

 

Councillor Clark stated that this was a very highly regulated and policed activity. Ofcom and the government had been very clear about the rollout and benefits of 5G and the safety standards to be followed. Where there were fears these could be breached, Ofcom had the power and obligation to monitor. Any circumstances the borough felt needed investigating could be requested. Based on all the evidence this was a non-problem but he was willing to meet with residents with concerns.

 

Councillor Werner commented that he did not pretend to understand all the science that had been quoted. However, going back to basics the council was very used to the role of monitoring in terms of environmental health and safety standards. With the change to the motion it did not seem ridiculous to be checking up on whether the masts were within the guidelines. At the moment this was based on self-certification which was not fool proof. It would be sensible for the council to be checking on a cycle. 

 

Councillor Targowski referred to the website ‘Fullfact.org’ which undertook independent checks to counter bad information. Ofcom had carried out measurements that consistently showed the amount of radiation around base stations was well below the internationally agreed limits. It was a waste of council taxpayer money if the council monitored this itself.

 

Councillor Hill stated that the technology was completely new and extremely powerful. The UK and US were planning to implement systems 100 times more powerful than the Europeans, Chinese and Russians. Nobody knew the effect on populations because it was all new. It was the non-ionising spectrum but the effect was not known. Some people switched off wi-fi at night to get better sleep and medical advice was to get all devices away from you as they emitted radiation. This background radiation would be there permanently.  Councillor Hill felt there was a need to take the public health situation more seriously and not fall back on Ofcom saying it was ok. The motion would give people confidence.

 

Councillor Davey concluded the technology was very new. Public Health England solicitors, in papers he had sent to officers, had told government that councils could not rely on ICNIRP and they had to do their own investigations. Recently the US Court of Appeals on the DC circuit had ruled that the Federal Communications Commission must re-examine its health and safety guidelines for 5G and other wireless based technologies. This was a case brought by the Environmental Health Trust and the Children’s Health Defence. Councillor Davey explained that 5G communications were going to be there, but questioned if the world wanted to be swamped with EMF or should it be controlled. He understood the council would be liable if issues were found.

 

The vote was taken by a show of hands. 14 Councillors voted for the motion; 21 Councillors voted against the motion. The motion therefore fell.

 

Motion b

 

Councillor McWilliams introduced his motion. He explained that over the last few months he had been on a tour of the borough’s sporting facilities with the intention of putting together a sport and leisure strategy to guide the council’s ambitions. As part of the tour he had held a number of meetings with local gymnastics providers. One of the hardest of these had been with the former trustees of the Phoenix Gym. He had pieced together the history; it was a sad saga and lots could have been done differently including better communications.

 

Councillor McWilliams stated that the borough was committed to having more residents, more active, more often. Some who had attended the gym had found support elsewhere but others had given up on training which was very sad.  There was a clear demand for provision in the borough therefore the motion gave a clear commitment to work with existing providers on requirements and a third party on delivery. This would be the first step on a long journey. There would be an opportunity to develop Windsor Leisure Centre in due course.

 

Councillor Werner welcomed the motion and said he would do everything to support the upcoming strategy. However the Phoenix Gym had been a fabulous facility and its closure had been an incredible loss to the borough. Coaches had moved on and talent had gone elsewhere or given up. There was a feeling in the community that the council’s lack of support had led to the closure and he stated it would be good to hear an apology for this. He hoped the council would learn some lessons and provide appropriate leadership.

 

Councillor Sharpe questioned spending more money on sporting facilities when millions had been spent on the new Braywick Leisure Centre and extending the Windsor Leisure Centre, and commented that there had been no new facilities in the south of the borough for a number of years. He suggested Councillor McWilliams should discuss with relevant ward members the possibility of locating any new facility in the south of the borough.

 

Councillor Haseler commented that there was a clear shortage of gymnastics provision compared to other sports in the borough. However it was not all about the Olympics; gymnastics could be taken up at any age and at any ability level with a variety of benefits. Councillor Haseler referenced targets in the Corporate Plan that supported the motion including reducing the number of Year 6 pupils who were overweight and increasing the number of adults undertaking activity.

 

Councillor Hill commented that he was surprised at the motion given the Lead Member could bring a report to Cabinet on the subject. Like Councillor Werner, he mourned the loss of the Phoenix Gym and other facilities such as SportsAble.

 

Councillor Taylor commented that all were aware, particularly after covid, that physical mental health was beneficial to all. There would be a high proportion of residents in the borough who may not be able to afford such facilities. She therefore suggested the motion be amended to include additional wording:

 

i)             Work with existing gymnastic providers to understand the facilities that are required to meet demand, including how existing facilities can be best used and affordable for all.

 

Councillor McWilliams responded that as any such facility would be run by a private company who would set their own prices, he suggested the wording therefore be changed to ‘accessible to all’.

 

i)             Work with existing gymnastic providers to understand the facilities that are required to meet demand, including how existing facilities can be best used and accessible to all.

 

Councillors Taylor, McWilliams and Carroll agreed with the amended wording and therefore Members debated the original motion as amended.

 

Councillor Price highlighted that the Corporate Plan had been evidence based and Members were required to make all decisions based on evidence.  She had not seen any evidence for the proposed motion. Before she was prepared to support it in its entirety she needed to understand the lessons learned from the demise of the Phoenix Gym including the breakdown in communications.

 

Councillor Coppinger explained that the Phoenix Gym had been in his ward as was the new site. His residents had contacted him to ask if he had been aware that the gym had started building a temporary construction and had all relevant safety checks been undertaken. Unfortunately this had not been the case and as both ward member and Cabinet member had had had to ask officers to look into the situation. The council had tried hard to come up with ideas to support the gym but it had been too late as they had made their decision. There was however a great demand for this type of facility in the borough.

 

Councillor Luxton commented that she was looking forward to the next leisure centre being built in the south of the borough. She asked for reassurance this would be progressed in the next few months.

 

Councillor L. Jones stated that she supported the motion because it asked for a commitment from the council to support delivery but obviously she would wish to see more detail about how it would actually work. She understood that any capital spend would need a business case and would have to support itself. As long as this was taken on board and the project was kept within financial boundaries, she could support the motion.

 

Councillor Carroll supported the motion which fitted well with the importance of mental health, physical health and wider social health.  He felt that the idea that sport was dying across the borough was preposterous. The borough had the state of the art at the Braywick Leisure Centre and investment was being made at the Windsor Leisure Centre. The points around Ascot were vital and more was needed there. Councillor Rayner had asked him to note her support for the motion.

 

Councillor McWilliams concluded that he had looked at the history of the Phoenix Gym and it was clear that towards the end there had been a lack of communication which could and should have been better. The motion was designed to demonstrate the council was trying to do things differently. In relation to the south of the borough the council remained committed to developing the Oaks Leisure Centre. The loss of SportsAble was very sad. He had met with a number of the clubs including the Windsor Royals to discuss the issue. A number of different groups who had previously used the facility were now using the Braywick Leisure Centre for sessions and events including the swimming gala. The inclusion of facilities such as the lift in the swimming pool had helped with this. Evidence to support the motion was available but it had been worded to welcome a commitment rather than expect Members to approve an absolute commitment.

 

It was proposed by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor Carroll, and:

 

RESOLVED: That this Council resolves to:

 

ii)            Work with existing gymnastic providers to understand the facilities that are required to meet demand, including how existing facilities can be best used and accessible to all.

iii)          Identify opportunities to work with third parties to finance, build and manage a new, purpose-built gymnastics facility

iv)          Welcome a commitment in RBWM's forthcoming Sport & Leisure Strategy to support the delivery of a new, purpose-built gymnastics facility in partnership with a third party

 

The vote was taken by a show of hands; 35 Councillors voted for the motion; 1 Councillor voted against the motion.  Councillor abstained.

 

Motion c

 

Councillor Tisi introduced her motion. She explained that the Isis, Tamisis or the Thames, whatever the longest river in England was called, lay at the heart of the borough’s towns and flowed through them like a silver thread tying them together. 

 

There was evidence of human habitation by the Thames dating back to the Neolithic period. From Roman settlement to the building of Windsor Castle and the signing of the Magna Carter in the Middle Ages and on to the filth of the river in the 18th and 19th centuries which brought disease and the ‘great stink’. 

 

With the decline of heavy industry and the later improvement of water conditions, the Thames became a focus for leisure, from rowing at Henley and the university boat race, as well as the many pleasure crafts that were enjoyed by tourists and locals. Before the swimming baths were built in Windsor, many locals learnt to swim in the backwaters around Baths Island.

 

All had personal memories of the river; for Councillor Tisi it was one of her first dates with her husband picnicking and swimming in the river at Pangbourne. She stated that today it would be foolhardy to swim in the Thames as a chemical cocktail of sewage, agriculture runoff and road pollution combined to make a toxic environment, not only for humans but for the wildlife that depended on the river. Otters had been spotted near Windsor but they needed clean water to thrive. 

 

Councillor Tisi welcomed the amendment to the Environment Bill, however there was more that could be done to regulate the water companies beyond progressive reductions in the amount they polluted. More substantial penalties needed to be enforced against those who continued to pump human waste, toilet paper and used tampons into the river. Self-regulation did not work. In 2020, the storm overflow at Ham Lane near Windsor spilled 114 times for a total of 1741 hours. It was clear it was time to turn off the tap against the filth. 

 

Enforcement was dependent on the Environment Agency being able to investigate and robustly sanction offenders, something that was almost impossible when their budget has been cut so drastically that they could only currently enforce around 4% of pollution complaints. They needed to be able to inspect water companies and farms more regularly and penalise those who flouted the rules. Restoring the muscle of the EA was one of the most important ways rivers could be cleaned up. 

 

Councillor Tisi commented that as she was sure that Members with a farming background would agree, people working in agriculture wanted to improve the natural environment, yet nutrient rich slurry and farming by-products were washed into rivers, causing imbalance and an overgrowth of algae, suffocating aquatic life.  Farmers in Herefordshire were already working to reduce phosphate levels in the river Wye so it made sense to encourage local farming representatives to support their members to make similar efforts. 

 

Cleaning up rivers, like many of the environmental issues faced, could seem like a monumental task and some might argue that it is not within the council’s power to solve the problem. Councillor Tisi felt that the council had a duty to use its influence, to speak truth to power, to put pressure on those who could make a practical difference. The public outcry and concern from residents on this topic showed they were calling out for this kind of leadership and it aligned with the aims the council’s climate strategy and biodiversity action plan.  

 

Councillor Davies seconded the motion and commented that Councillor Tisi had already very eloquently described the very special place which the River Thames had in the life of the borough. She very much welcomed the duty which the Environment Act 2021 placed on water companies in England to secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impact of discharges from their storm overflows. This was a very positive step towards cleaning up the sewage discharges blighting the Thames and other rivers in England, but there were many threats to plants, wildlife and to humans from other sources. 

 

According to Surfers Against Sewage, 12 million tonnes of plastic were pouring into the world’s oceans every year. Microplastics were a particular issue with one submission to the recent Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee’s report ‘Water quality in rivers’ describing how microplastics affected wildlife both by causing animals to falsely sense they were full by eating plastic and by delivering chemical pollutants into their bodies and on into the food chain. Regulators did not currently monitor river water systematically for micro-plastics.

 

Household chemicals were another source of threat. Persistent chemicals, sometimes referred to as ‘forever chemicals’, were chemicals that did not degrade easily in the natural environment. In some cases, it took centuries for these chemicals, used widely in stain repellents, paints and polishes, to degrade. Removing these contaminants from rivers was extremely challenging.

 

Toxic pesticides found in flea treatments used on domestic cats and dogs had been detected at potentially harmful levels in English rivers. Researchers had found widespread contamination of two neurotoxic chemicals in 20 sampled rivers. Fipronil was found in 98% of samples, and the average level of its highly toxic breakdown product fipronil sulfone was 38 times above the recommended environmental safety limit. This had a neuro-toxic effect on insects and other animals.

 

Experts said that there was enough legislation in place; what was lacking was inspection, oversight and enforcement. Environment Agency funding had been reduced by 63% from £120 million in 2009 to £40 million in 2020. The Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee’s report ‘Water quality in rivers’ had more than made the case for increased inspection and enforcement and for increased funding.

 

Councillor L. Jones commented that she welcomed the motion although this was not a new issue. Ham Island took all the sewage for the Windsor catchment area. Old Windsor Parish Council had commissioned a report on storm sewage overflows as part of its Neighbourhood Plan. That highlighted the number of overflows from the Ham Island facility during heavy rain, which was astonishing. Following discussions with Thames Water regarding their capacity they had finally upgraded the facility and stopped using their ‘lagoons’, lakes of polluted water that seeped into the Thames.  With increased development planned in Windsor it was unclear if the facility would have the capacity moving forwards and this had been raised in the Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor L. Jones therefore supported the motion as she knew her residents would support increased oversight and enforcement.

 

Councillor Larcombe commented that Slough sewage treatment works were currently expanding including a 1.5m pipe across Dorney Common. Councillor Larcombe questioned whether fly tipping could be considered pollution, as it was not just farmers or water companies that were liable for the problems being discussed. At Aldermaston low level liquid radioactive waste had been poured into the Thames for 50 years, now perhaps they had a problem with the two pipes. Councillor Larcombe had reported a pollution incident to Thames Water he had been told to telephone it in but he questioned what had happened as there was then no record of it. The Royal Borough was a Lead Local Flood Authority and already had permissive powers for enforcement on ordinary watercourses. In his area, the watercourse was full to the brim with fly tipping and nothing had been done about it for years. The new legislation brought into play the Office for Environmental Protection which would have powers to not just take on the authorities but also to bring ideas for new legislation to the government.

 

Councillor Larcombe suggested removal of the words ‘of water companies and farms’ from the motion.

 

Councillor Tisi responded that she understood Councillor Larcombe’s thinking but because the main thrust was about the water companies and farms being held to account she would prefer the wording was retained. She suggested adding the wording ‘and other polluting sources’ to the motion instead:

 

That this Council asks that the Leader of the Council writes to:

 

i)             The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our local MPS to call for the Government to restore Environment Agency budgets to deliver the necessary oversight,

ii)            The Chairperson of the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee to advocate for greater enforcement of existing regulatory powers through increasing the inspection regularity of water companies and farms and other polluting sources and rigorously prosecuting offenders through the Environmental Audit Committee and Ofwat.

iii)           The Regional Director of the National Farmers’ Union requesting clarification on the action being taken locally by farmers to prevent nutrient run-off.

 

Councillor Tisi, Councillor Davies and Councillor Larcombe agreed the amendment and therefore Members debated the original motion as amended.

 

Councillor Stimson commented that it was a commendable motion but she was unsure it was the right place for it. She had attended a meeting the previous week with Chairman of Natural England and the Secretary of State for the Environment about the new Environment Bill. It was very fortunate that the council could work with someone from natural England who had been seconded to South East Water. As South East Water was so much bigger than Thames Water they could deal with them on behalf of the council.  The motion would be under the purvey of Parliament at the motion rather than being dealt with at the local level. She understood the sentiment but felt it was tricky to put more on officers at the moment.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that he shared many of the sentiments and the overall need to improve water quality. Whilst he commended the laudable intent he questioned whether it was the right format for such a discussion given the responsibility for regulation lay with national government. What was more concerning was the prospect of being asked to write to government based on a motion he had only been sighted on when the agenda had been published. If it had been discussed with him in advance he would have had time to consider it, read all the background to give a more considered reply than he was able to at this time. As such he was unable to support the motion as drafted despite supporting parts of it. He would raise the issue with the local MPs at the first opportunity given they were the ones who carried the weight at the national level to effect change.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that he did not think Councillor Stimson had understood the motion, which did not ask officers to take on any extra responsibility. The motion simply asked for the Leader to write to three groups. One of the key roles of the council and the Leader of the council was to put pressure on government bodies to get the council’s view across. Previous successful motions had requested letters be written by the Leader or a Lead Member to relevant government bodies. If Councillor Johnson did not agree with the wording he invited him to contact Councillor Tisi to agree wording for a future motion on the subject.

 

Councillor Cannon commented that all supported the rationale behind the motion, particularly riverside ward councillors, however he did not feel it was the right way to do it. Writing individually to MPs who represented all residents was the right thing to do as they were the people who had the power to take action. He suggested that discussing issues with Lead Members at a very early stage to getting wording all could support would be a far more sensible approach.

 

Councillor Brar commented that it was the sad truth that every river in England was now polluted beyond legal limits. The Environment Agency rated only 14% of rivers as ‘good’ in 2019. This chemical pollution was chiefly caused by sewage discharge from water companies. 36% of English rivers had been damaged by water companies. In England they released untreated human waste directly into the waterways over 400,000 times for a total of 3 million hours in 2020 alone.  At the Little Marlow sewage works just up the Thames from Cookham, in just ten months of 2020 the sewer storm overflow spilled 15 times for a total of 151 hours. It was not just the River Thames; the Hurley sewage works discharged into Bisham Brook. 

 

Government funding to the EA to monitor river quality and regulate water companies had dropped 75% since 2010/11. In 2020 just 3.6% of pollution complaints made to the EA resulted in penalties. The water companies were not inspected on a regular basis and water quality was rarely tested, and it seemed that water companies could pump raw sewage into rivers with virtual impunity. 

 

The River Thames was central to life in Cookham, both for leisure activities such as rowing, boating and swimming and for businesses which owed their livelihood to those coming to Cookham to enjoy the river and riverside walks.  Sir Stanley Spencer’s last, unfinished, painting ‘Christ Preaching at Cookham Regatta’ was not intended to include de-oxygenated water filled with effluent and fish filled with microplastics and poisoned by a cocktail of chemicals. Members owed it to all those who loved the River Thames and the other waterways around the borough and the wildlife to do everything in their power to protect them.

 

Councillor Tisi commented that she had not been aware that she needed to ‘share her homework’ with the headteacher before she handed it in. Members had never previously been asked to share motions before they were submitted. It was perfectly standard to have a motion published a week before the meeting. In terms of asking or writing to MPs, that was what the motion said. Her MP had voted against the amendment to the Environment Bill so she was unsure what writing to him would do. Councillor Cannon had said this was the wrong way to bring a motion but she highlighted that this was her way to bring issues forward as an Opposition Member. She could not understand why some Members felt they could not support the motion. She was disappointed and felt that residents would be too.

 

A recorded vote was taken following a request by at least five Councillors. 16 Councillors voted for the motion; 20 Councillors voted against the motion. 1 Councillor abstained. The motion therefore fell.

 

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm, finished at 9.50 pm.

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN…………………………………

 

DATE………………………………………..