Agenda and minutes

To elect a Mayor for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

The outgoing Mayor will address the Council for up to 5 minutes.

The outgoing Mayor will then call for nominations for the Office of Mayor for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

The outgoing Mayor will ask the Council to vote on the nomination(s).

At this point in the proceedings, the outgoing Mayor and the incoming Mayor may adjourn in order to place the Cloak and Chain of Office on the incoming Mayor. 

The incoming Mayor will take the chair and make the Declaration of Acceptance of Office as required by Section 83(3) of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Mayor to address the Council for up to 5 minutes.

The Mayor to present the Past Mayor’s Badge to the outgoing Mayor. 

Caroline Smith the current Mayor, welcomed recently elected Members. The Mayor thanked all those who had invited her to their events over her time in Office.  She highlighted some of the events that she had attended including for the Queen’s Jubilee.

Caroline Smith thanked Caroline Kelly, the Mayor’s Assistant, the Deputy Mayor Beth Rowland, and her consort, for their support over the year.

The Mayor called for nominations for the office of Mayor for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

It was proposed by Clive Jones and seconded by Stephen Conway that Beth Rowland be elected as Mayor for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

It was noted that the Mayor’s chosen charity would be the Woodley Foodbank.

RESOLVED: That Beth Rowland be elected as Mayor for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Beth Rowland made the statutory acceptance of office pursuant to Section 83 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Beth Rowland addressed the meeting as follows –

Thank you very much Members, for putting your faith in me as your Mayor for the year.  I will carry out this position to the best of my ability.  Before we go back to the agenda, I would like to embarrass Caroline Smith just once more.  She has been a great example to us all on how to behave as Mayor, and I hope that I am as good as she is.  I would like to thank her with a plant that she can put outside, and which I hope will bring memories to her of the year she spent as the First Citizen in Wokingham.

To appoint a Deputy Mayor for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

The Mayor will call for nominations for the Office of Deputy Mayor for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

The Mayor will ask the Council to vote on the nomination(s).

The Deputy Mayor will make the Declaration of Acceptance of Office as required by Section 83(3) of the Local Government Act, 1972.

The Mayor will present the Deputy Mayor’s badge of office to the Deputy Mayor. 

The Deputy Mayor will address the Council for up to 3 minutes.

The Mayor called for nominations for the office of Deputy Mayor for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

It was proposed by Clive Jones and seconded by Stephen Conway that Adrian Mather be appointed as Deputy Mayor for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

It was:

RESOLVED: That Adrian Mather be appointed as Deputy Mayor for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Adrian Mather made the statutory acceptance of office pursuant to Section 83 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Adrian Mather thanked the Council for appointing him to the office of Deputy Mayor.

At this point in the meeting, the Reverend Jackie Case led the meeting in prayers.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Gary Cowan, Peter Harper, Chris Johnson, Bill Soane and Alison Swaddle.

Sam Akhtar attended the meeting virtually.

To confirm the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 23 March 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 23 March 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Stephen Newton declared a Personal Interest in Agenda Item 13 Appointments to Outside Bodies, on the grounds that he was nominated to represent the Council on the Berkshire Pension Fund, and his wife was a member of the scheme.

The Council’s Assistant Director Governance, as Returning Officer, to report on the Borough elections held on 4 May 2023.

The Council considered a report from the Returning Officer, which gave details of the results of the local elections held on 4 May 2023.

The report outlined the election process, the results and the turnout for each Borough ward contested.

It was proposed by Stephen Conway and seconded by Imogen Shepherd-Dubey that the report of the Returning Officer be noted.

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That the report of the Returning Officer be noted.

To receive any urgent announcements by the Mayor or from the Head of Paid Service.

The Mayor informed Members that she had no announcements to make.

Thank you very much Madam Mayor.  Tonight, I come to the end of my time as Leader of Wokingham Borough Council.  The first Liberal Democrat Council Leader in Wokingham for twenty years.  It has been an honour and it has been a privilege to be the Leader of the Council, and to work with so many excellent officers, Executive Members, and fellow Councillors.  I am proud that the partnership that we created last May, between Liberal Democrats, Labour and Independent Councillors, gave the Borough Council much needed financial stability and financial competence.  I thank the 28 councillors who formed the partnership last year.  We wanted to change the culture of the Council.  We wanted a concentration on partnerships within the Council, and also with outside bodies and agencies, including town and parish councils.  I think we have made a very good start on this journey.

Madam Mayor, I would like to take a few moments to thank a few of my colleagues.   I am delighted to welcome four new Liberal Democrat councillors; Stephen Newton, Jordan Montgomery, Jane Ainslie and Catherine Glover.  Well done all of you.

Now to my two fellow Ward councillors, David Hare and Andrew Mickleburgh, who are also very close friends.  David has worked really well as our Adult Social Care lead, and Andrew has been a really good Chair of the Children’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Thank you to both of you.

When I introduced my Executive last year, I said that there was no one better than Councillor Sarah Kerr to be the Executive Member for Climate Emergency and Residents Services.  I was right of course.  I usually am.  Sarah has done a great job handling so many roles.  Thank you very much Sarah. 

Lindsay Ferris, my predecessor as Lib Dem Leader, has worked tirelessly on the Local Plan Update.  Not an easy task when you have so many Secretary of States to deal with.  I think so far it has been four, but thank you very much Lindsay. 

Prue Bray, in my opinion, she has been the best Executive Member for Children’s Services that this Council has ever had.  She thoroughly understands this brief, and has with officers, worked through some very, very difficult issues.  We should be proud that 96% of Year 7 children were able to be given a school of their choice recently, and the work that she and officers have done to secure Safety Valve funding has been quite exceptional.  Another mess that we had to clear up after the previous administration.  So, thanks Prue, a job really well done. 

Paul Fishwick, he has been of the busiest Executive Members.  Clearly much more on top of his brief than his predecessor, including Active Travel in his job title shows that the Lib Dems are committed to encouraging residents to walk and cycle more, which is good for their health and good for the environment.  Sadly, others do not always get this, but thank you very much Paul.

Ian Shenton, he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To elect the Leader of the Council and receive notification from the Leader of his/her Deputy and the remainder of the Members appointed to the Executive and their respective portfolios, Deputy Executive Members and, if applicable, the terms of delegation to Executive Members and Officers.

The Leader of Council/Executive Members will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in total.

The Leader of the Opposition will be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Following the resignation of the Leader of Council and in accordance with the governance arrangements which were adopted by Council at its meeting on 18 November 2010, the Mayor called for nominations for the Office of Leader of the Council for a four-year term (or until the Leader’s Term of Office as a Councillor expires).

It was proposed by Clive Jones and seconded by Prue Bray that Stephen Conway be elected as Leader of the Council for a four-year term.

RESOLVED:  That Stephen Conway be elected as Leader of the Council for a four-year term.

Stephen Conway addressed the meeting as follows –

Stephen Conway, Leader of the Council:

Thank you, Madam Mayor for introducing me as the new Leader.  I am immensely grateful to Council for entrusting me with the responsibilities of the post to which I’ve just been elected.  It’s an enormous privilege to lead this Council, and I will do so to the best of my ability and seek to justify your support.

We have had many distinguished leaders of Council – none more so than my immediate predecessor, Clive Jones.  I had the pleasure of serving as Clive’s deputy last year and I know better than anyone that he is going to be a hard act to follow.  Thank you, Clive, for your clear-sighted, calm, and courageous leadership over the last twelve months; I will strive to build on your many successes.

Clive led an impressive and effective Executive, and I am not proposing to make any changes to its composition.   Clive will remain on the Executive as our lead on business and economic development.  I am delighted to say that my colleague Prue Bray has consented to be my deputy; her experience and good judgement, respected across the Council, will be invaluable.  The list of Executive Members and their areas of responsibility has been tabled in a paper before you.  I am not going to read out names that you can read yourself.

This year will no doubt be challenging for the Council, as was the last.  Inflation has not gone away; demand for our services grows, interest rates remain high, and the government has given us totally inadequate core funding.  But we have at least three significant advantages to help us rise to the challenges ahead.  The first of those advantages is our external partnerships.  Over the past year, the Lib Dem administration devoted time and effort to improving the Council’s relationships with its community partners – especially the voluntary and charitable sector, town and parish councils, business, the university, schools, and health providers.  We are forging much more effective relationships with these bodies than in the past and that will help our community to weather whatever storms may hit us.  This administration will continue to work to nurture and deepen these relationships, in the firm belief that we can achieve more together than we can on our own.

A second big advantage we possess is that this Council has impressive and dedicated officers,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To answer any public questions

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for members of the public to ask questions submitted under notice.

The Council welcomes questions from members of the public about the work of the Council

Subject to meeting certain timescales, questions can relate to general issues concerned with the work of the Council or an item which is on the Agenda for this meeting.  For full details of the procedure for submitting questions please contact the Democratic Services Section on the numbers given below or go to www.wokingham.gov.uk/publicquestions

In accordance with the agreed procedure the Mayor invited members of the public to submit questions to the appropriate Members.

Question:

We have been waiting for 19 months for the Winnersh Park and Ride to resume the 500 bus to Reading. A lot of money has been spent and what for, may I ask?

I travel on this bus service regularly to Reading and the bus was very popular. It was the most convenient way to Reading without taking my car.

In Hurst there is a bus service which travels to Reading. However, this is an hourly service in the week and Saturday its 2 hourly. Not a direct route.

The Mereoak Park and Ride is too far away from Hurst to make it viable to use.

While the Winnersh Park and Ride was temporarily out of action, you provided a bus from the TVP. Not ideal but was temporary so ok. That stopped as you said due to lack of demand. This service was never going to be popular from our area as Winnersh one was.

What a White Elephant and waste of money the car park is unless the 500 Park and Ride Bus continues to run.

Please reinstate our number 500 Park and Ride Bus.

Question

We have been waiting for 19 month for the Winnersh Park and Ride to resume the 500 bus to Reading. A lot of money has been spent and what for may I ask?

I travel on this bus service regularly to Reading and the bus was very popular. It was the most convenient way to Reading without taking my car.

In Hurst there is a bus service which travels to Reading. However, this is an hourly service in the week and Saturday its 2 hourly. Not a direct route.

The Mereoak Park and Ride is too far away from Hurst to make it viable to use.

While the Winnersh Park and Ride was temporarily out of action, you provided a bus from the TVP. Not ideal but was temporary so ok. That stopped as you said due to lack of demand. This service was never going to be popular from our area as Winnersh one was.

What a White Elephant and waste of money the car park is unless the 500 Park and Ride Bus continues to run.

Please reinstate our number 500 Park and Ride Bus.

Answer:

Thank you, Heather, for the question.

Before starting the project to increase parking capacity at Winnersh Triangle a business case was undertaken and independently assessed during 2017. External funding was awarded at that time on the basis that there was sufficient demand for the additional spaces and therefore the investment in the car park would prove a greater benefit to the Borough compared to the cost.

Before the Covid pandemic the 500 service was a commercial service run by Reading Buses.  Post pandemic travel patterns have changed and there has been a significant decline in Park & Ride usage nationally, and although there is a recovery it has been slow.  Therefore, it would be a commercial decision by Reading Buses if they wish to operate a commercial park and ride service.  The Liberal Democrats inherited this project when we became the Administration last May, and it was financially sensible to complete it.  The ground floor of the park and ride is now open, ahead of schedule, and this allows access for Blue Badge users and allows rail users to park closer to the station.  

It can also be used for those wishing to travel into central Reading who can use the train from Winnersh Triangle or the nearby frequent Lion 4/X4 bus that operates along the A329 Reading Road.

Supplementary Question:

But the bus is a long way away from the car park isn’t it and what is the top half of the car park going to be used for?

Supplementary Answer:

It is a shortish walk from the car park to the A329 Reading Road.  The top part of the car park is currently closed off until demand in the lower part increases, and then we will open the top half.

Question:

During the election campaign, residents of Shinfield North expressed opposition; concerns; lack of knowledge; or support for the proposed changes for waste collection.

Opponents were scornful of the decision making process; whether it would save money or not. Parents, carers who use disposable nappies (and neighbours) enquired as to hygiene or foul smells especially during summer.

Concerns ranged from “where are we going to put things for two weeks” or “more hard plastic - how green is that”; the negative visual impact and the practicality. As one resident asked  “how's my 84 year old neighbour going to get the bin up and down all those steps?”

Support came from those who were fed up with the litter all over the place after collection day, which was ascribed to bags being ripped open by foxes or from spillage during collection.

One question was tantamount to "how did WBC come this decision - was it based on a biased consultation where you couldn’t say what you wanted?"

Residents' views were significantly divided between blue bags and wheelie bins, also between weekly and two-weekly collection.

What messages should all Councillors, or candidates, be communicating to residents in response to their concerns or opposition?

Question

During the election campaign, residents of Shinfield North expressed opposition; concerns; lack of knowledge; or support for the proposed changes to the waste collection system.

Some who opposed the changes were scornful as to the decision making process; or whether or not it would ever save any money. Others caring for babies or for adults who have to use disposable nappies - plus their neighbours - asked whether it was going to be hygienic or just stink everyone’s houses out especially during a hot summer?

Concerns about the proposed changes ranged from “where are we going to put things for two weeks” or “more hard plastic - how green is that” while others talked about the negative visual impact or the practicality. As one resident put it “how's my 84 year old neighbour going to get the bin up and down all those steps?”

Support came from those who were fed up with having to clean up after the bin men had been and gone, or with their blue bags being chewed apart by foxes and cats.

Paraphrasing one question, it was tantamount to "how did WBC ever come to make such a daft decision and was it based on the biased consultation where you couldn’t express the answer you wanted to" ?

But what was patently clear was that residents' views were significantly divided.

So, on behalf of all who expressed a view, what messages should all Councillors, or candidates, communicate to residents in response to their concerns?

Answer

It is regrettable that so much confusing and false information about the changes to our waste collection was deliberately circulated as a political ploy during the election campaign.  Our proposal is simple: food waste will be collected every week, accompanied by recycling one week and general waste the next.  The report that lays out what is going to happen and why can be seen on the Council website at item 100 on the agenda for the March Executive meeting.  The relevant URL for that will be provided in the published version of this answer:

https://wokingham.moderngov.co.uk/documents/g4261/Public%20reports%20pack%2021st-Mar-2023%2019.00%20Executive.pdf?T=10

Our decision is robust, informed by public consultation, the input of industry experts and by the experience of the 85% of councils that already use the method we are proposing.  Indeed, we will draw on their experience to take into account residents' concerns about things like the suitability of a property for a bin, the size of bin, assisted collections, and medical and large family needs.  We understand that change can be difficult, but we will be adopting the mitigations proven by many others.

Finally, to answer your question directly, the messages that councillors should be communicating to the residents are:

-       We cannot afford to continue with the current expensive system.

-       Secondly, we need to improve our recycling rates to meet environmental targets.

-       Thirdly, we must take note of impending legislative changes that will result in direct government intervention to achieve their declared and desired consistency, which will make changes to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.2

Question:

Hatchwood Mill has 433 houses, with approximately 1,300 residents.  It was granted planning permission in 2016, by an Extraordinary Planning Committee with 53 planning conditions, thereafter, included within a binding Section 106 agreement.

7 years later, with construction over, we continue to have serious issues including.

An unsafe central road through the estate not built to the approved plans.

An unsafe ditch which we cannot find on any planning application. A flood risk to neighbouring houses due to changes that weren't communicated in advance.

Unsafe Mown Amenity Grass areas, not cleared of construction rubble making them dangerous to play on. Five streetlights still not connected. SUDS drainage clogged with algae, bullrushes and willow. Thousands of dead and missing trees and plants.

A play park that’s still not built. Developers are planning to leave site and handover to a management company, leaving residents with the ongoing maintenance responsibility.

I’d like to ask the Executive Member for Planning what action does WBC intend to take to assure the residents of Winnersh, that Developers will be held responsible for their undertakings, and that matters will be delivered in the way that WBC, as the Local Planning Authority, first agreed back in 2016?

Question

Hatchwood Mill has 433 houses, with approximately 1,300 residents.  It was granted planning permission in 2016, by an Extraordinary Planning Committee with 53 planning conditions, thereafter, included within a binding Section 106 agreement.

7 years later, with construction over, we continue to have serious issues including.

·       An unsafe central road through the estate not built to the approved plans.

·       An unsafe ditch which we cannot find on any planning application.

·       A flood risk to neighbouring houses due to changes that weren't communicated in advance.

·       Unsafe Mown Amenity Grass areas, not cleared of construction rubble making them dangerous to play on.

·       Five streetlights still not connected.

·       SUDS drainage clogged with algae, bullrushes and willow.

·       Thousands of dead and missing trees and plants.

·       A play park that’s still not built.

Developers are planning to leave site and handover to a management company, leaving residents with the ongoing maintenance responsibility.

I’d like to ask the Executive Member for Planning what action does WBC intend to take to assure the residents of Winnersh, that Developers will be held responsible for their undertakings, and that matters will be delivered in the way that WBC, as the Local Planning Authority, first agreed back in 2016?

Answer

Thank you for your question and I’m sorry that matters remain to be resolved on this site but let me assure you that our officers are continuing to work to resolve those issues that we have control over.

Matters on this site have a long and complex history and I’m very aware that some residents have not been happy with the developer during and post the construction phase for not fulfilling all of their planning and legal obligations in a timely manner.

My understanding is that many of the staff at the developers with responsibility for this site have moved on and I know it has not always been straightforward for our officers to maintain dialogue.   We will be working on putting new relationships in place ,we are continuing to work through the various issues that you have raised- pursuing solutions with the developer.

Various teams, including Planning, Highways, Drainage, Legal and Green Infrastructure Services within the Council have been involved in dealing with these matters.  They are ongoing and will continue to be pursued until resolution.

However, it is not for us to comment on any of the private contractual relationships between the residents, developer and management company in relation to the current and future maintenance of hard and soft landscaping, estate roads and the Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (NEAP), etc, however the planning permission enables the principal of future maintenance of public space etc. being undertaken by a management company and we would hope that would have been made clear to any residents purchasing properties on the site, by those conveyancing solicitors acting on behalf of purchasers, when buying properties on site.

Having spoken to officers, I’m also happy to arrange for any further meetings between residents, officers and the developer, with a view to getting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.3

Question:

From the West side of Loddon Park Estate are two new bridges over the Old River branch of the Loddon onto an ‘Island’ between the Old and New branches.

There is a gravel pathway across the ‘Island’ up to the old Haul Bridge across the New River branch.  The latter connects to Footpath 30 which runs from Sandford Lane below its Loddon Bridges up to Park Lane in Hurst.

The deck plates of the Haul Bridge are indeed rusted but the structure otherwise appears intact and is very strong, having been designed to carry HGVs.

It was finally shut off at the start of the Pandemic. Can you please consider its repair and reopened for Pedestrian and Cycle traffic, to provide a safer route than Sandford Lane. 

The repair could be affected by first treating the existing Deck plates to stop any further degradation. Then welding new cross beams on top of those deck plates and a new set of deck plates on the top of those bars to just support Pedestrian and Cycle Traffic. Much cheaper than trying to renovate the existing deck.

It should be possible to overcome Footpath 30 adjacent Landowner objections.  

Question

From the East side of Loddon Park Estate are two new bridges over the Old River branch of the Loddon onto an ‘Island’ between the Old and New branches.

There is a gravel pathway across the ‘Island’ up to the old Haul Bridge across the New River branch.  The latter connects to Footpath 30 which runs from Sandford Lane below its Loddon Bridges up to Park Lane in Hurst.

The deck plates of the Haul Bridge are indeed rusted but the structure otherwise appears intact and is very strong, having been designed to carry HGVs.  It was finally shut off at the start of the Pandemic. Can you please consider its repair and reopen for Pedestrian and Cycle traffic, to provide a safer route than Sandford Lane. 

The repair could be affected by first treating the existing Deck plates to stop any further degradation.  Then welding new cross beams on top of those deck plates and a new set of deck plates on the top of those bars to just support Pedestrian and Cycle Traffic.  Much cheaper than trying to renovate the existing deck.

It should be possible to overcome Footpath 30 adjacent Landowner objections.  

Answer

We agree that this would be a very good link for pedestrians, but unfortunately the Council does not have the ability to repair and reopen the bridge. The bridge is not owned by the Council but instead is owned by the landowners of each side of the banks of the Loddon; the agreement of each landowner is required to allow the Council to re-open the path.  

This bridge is the original ‘bailey’ bridge built around the 1960’s to facilitate gravel extraction on the site. The Council commissioned a safety inspection of the bridge in July 2021 to determine whether it was safe for use. The current condition of the bridge is such that it cannot be safely opened in its present state, and we have needed to close the bridge to prevent people trying to access across it and putting themselves in danger.

We have explored options for the repair or replacement of the bridge, and the reopening of the path link to the eastern side with the landowners but unfortunately permission for public access across the bridge was refused by the landowner on the eastern side. The landowners have also made it clear that they intend to remove the bridge.

To receive any petitions which Members or members of the public wish to present.

There were no petitions received.

To answer any member questions.

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for Members to ask questions submitted under Notice.

Any questions not dealt with within the allotted time will be dealt with in a written reply.

There were no Member questions received.

To receive a report on the political balance of the Council and to appoint to Council Committees/Panels/Boards in accordance with the Groups’ wishes as set out in the appendices to this report.

Report to follow.

The Council considered a report on the political balance of the Council and the appointment to the Council’s Committees and Boards, in accordance with the wishes of the Groups.

It was proposed by Stephen Conway and seconded by Prue Bray that the recommendations in the report be agreed.

It was noted that reference made to the Wokingham Borough Partnership, within the report, should read ‘Liberal Democrat Group.’

Where more nominations had been received than places, individual votes were taken.

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED That:

1)     that it be noted that the representation of the political groups on the Council, as advised to the Chief Executive, is 26 Liberal Democrat Group Members, 22 Conservative Group Members and 5 Labour Group members. There is one Independent Member who is not part of a political group, and therefore cannot be included in the calculations when determining political balance;

2)     the appointment and composition of Committees and Boards as set out in Para 2.1. be approved;

3)     the allocation of seats on Committees and Boards on the basis that, of the 95 seats (as set out in Para 3.4), 47 be allocated to the Liberal Democrat Group, 39 be allocated to the Conservative Group and 9 to the Labour Group, be approved;

4)     the proposals submitted by the respective Group Leaders and that those Members be appointed to the Committees and Boards as set out in Appendix 1 of the Minutes be approved;

5)     that it be agreed that the principles of proportionality be applied when Members are appointed to Sub Committees, Panels or Working Groups and approves the proposals submitted by the respective Group Leaders, of Members to be appointed to Sub Committees, Panels or Working Groups as set out in Appendix 2 of the Minutes;

6)     it be noted that the Constitution states that the Chair of the Standards Committee will be appointed at Annual Council and agreed that as with all other committees the Chair will be appointed at the first meeting of the Standards Committee;

7)     the appointment of the Independent Persons to assist the work of the Standards Committee and the co-opted Parish/Town Council Representatives as set out in Appendix 1; 3 Agenda Item 12, be noted;

8)     the elected Member representatives on the Wokingham Borough Wellbeing Board, as set out in Appendix 1, as nominated by the Leader of Council in accordance with Section 194 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, be noted.

To consider and approve the appointment of Members to serve on Outside Bodies in accordance with the Groups’ wishes, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. (Appendix 1 - to follow)

Members were asked to refer to a list of nominations to various Outside Bodies, as circulated at the meeting as Appendix 3. Where more nominations had been received than places, individual votes were taken.

Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That Members be appointed to the Outside Bodies, as set out in Appendix 3 to the Minutes.

To note the 2022/23 annual report of the Chair of Standards Committee.

Council considered the annual report from the Standards Committee 2022-23.

It was proposed by Morag Malvern and seconded by Imogen Shepherd-DuBey that the Annual Report from the Standards Committee 2022-23, be noted.

RESOLVED:  That the Annual Report of the Standards Committee 2022-23 be noted.