Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Town Hall, Maidenhead. View directions

Contact: Wendy Binmore  01628 796251

Audio-recording: To listen, click here or to download and listen later, right click and save as an mp3

Items
No. Item

35.

Apologies for absence

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Ian Taplin.

36.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 219 KB

To receive any Declarations of Interest.

Minutes:

The Chairman declared a personal interest as he was the Council appointed Member of the Maidenhead Town Partnership Board and PRoM.

37.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 93 KB

To confirm the Part I minutes of the previous meeting.

Minutes:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2017 be approved.

38.

Capital Programme 2018/19 pdf icon PDF 71 KB

To receive the above report.

Minutes:

The capital programme detailed projects for the following year. Bids had been submitted and were listed in paragraph 2.3of the report. The capital programme referred to the draft cycling strategy and the implementation of local neighbourhood plans. As long as the bids did not change, items on the list could be swapped or prioritised.

 

Susy Shearer stated all the projects were worthy of funding and she thanked the officer for all his hard work. Susy added that she wanted to add Parsonage Lane where it joined the A308 to the list of projects as it was in need of resurfacing. It affected cyclists and Hatch Lane was the last link of the Clewer Corridor. The road surface was very poor with breakages at all sides of the cushions and edges of the road surfaces. The Chairman confirmed he would look into it and assess the road surface. Any remedial works would be carried out. The Principal Transport Officer confirmed that the timeframe for the projects to be carried out was 2019 – 2020 in time for Crossrail opening.

 

Residents requested an update on the adoption of Horseguards Drive consultation. The Chairman responded that residents had contacted him requesting that the cycle lane be moved from outside their homes. However, it had been operating as a part of a cycle route for a number of years. The Council suggested it would formally adopt that section of private road. A consultation would have to take place with all residents and if adopted, the Council would continue to pay for the upkeep. If residents did not want the adoption of the Drive to take place, an alternative route for the cycle lane would need to be found. The Chairman added that proposals and details of the consultation would be circulated to the Cycle Forum.

 

With regards to cycle parking at schools, the Principal Transport Officer stated that all schools were asked to provided details on their cycle parking. If a school had no parking or, they required more parking for cycles, they were prioritised within the capital programme over those with more than enough parking.

 

The Chairman confirmed how funding for large ticket items worked. He stated there was a grant funding bidding process; the LEP had funding available to improve links into the Town Centre from Maidenhead Station. Instead of using pedestrian routes, the Council felt it was better to have an alternative in place. That alternative was to provide a bridge from the station, over the Landings to improve links. Oxford Street had used an all movement crossing and all could use that at surface level. A bid had gone into the LEP for funding of either a bridge or, an all movement crossing.

 

Members of the Forum stated that Council spending on cycling still seemed to be very low with plenty more worthwhile schemes that could do with funding. The Chairman responded that the Cycle Forum had taken the view to increase funding for cycling throughout the Borough. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

39.

Maidenhead Station

To receive a presentation on the redevelopment of Maidenhead Station forecourt.

Minutes:

Members received a brief presentation on the potential layout of Maidenhead Station. There would be cycle parking storage for 300 bikes in a well-lit area. The presentation showed possible sites for a pedestrian bridge and an all use crossing which would be wide enough to allow cycles to use it.

 

Members of the Cycle Forum stated the station was a key area for the Town Centre but in its current state, it was a mess. The Principal Transport Officer stated the current drawings within the presentation were conceptual. There would be seating and landscaping with attractive paving. The new layout would provide much more space. Residents said they found it disheartening that cyclists would not be able to use the footbridge. Putting both cyclists and pedestrians on the bridge would allow the free flow of traffic underneath the bridge. The Principal Transport Officer said it was challenging as all the roads that led to that area came from all different directions and the area was not big enough to allow a bridge wide enough for multi-use. It would not be possible to shut Queen Street due to it being used as an exit for the service roads from nearby buildings. There was also a flooding issue there. Susy Shearer said she was concerned about cycle parking due to ad hoc parking of bikes being chained to the railings of the train station. The new layout was too far away from the ticket hall which made continuing to use the railings far more attractive to cyclists. The Chairman responded that Network Rail did not want parking for bikes on the railings. The site of the proposed cycle parking was Council owned land and the parking would be covered, safe, secure and well-lit, therefore, making it more attractive to cyclists. The new parking would be right next to the all use crossing and the entrance to the forecourt of the station.

 

Councillor Yong stated she would be difficult to persuade to use the footbridge after a long day at work and would be more likely to use the crossing, she felt a better solution was needed. The Chairman said the Borough had been in discussions with Network Rail to extend the platform to create a link between Stafferton Way so pedestrians and cyclists could get across to the station but, Network Rail did not agree. The Principal Transport Officer confirmed that no consultation had taken place regarding the changes to Maidenhead Station and it was still in the initial stages of design.

 

Councillor Yong suggested building an underground tunnel to be used as a crossing. The Principal Transport Officer said that would not be good for disabled access as the ramps would not be long enough. Also, people did not like to use subways due to security issues, there would also be flooding issues due to rainwater and sewers. Councillor Love stated residents had contacted him with concerns regarding the maintenance of cycles parking and was concerned about the lack of maintenance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

40.

Maidenhead Missing Links

To receive a presentation on Missing links.

Minutes:

Countryside attended the Forum and provided Members with a brief presentation on the four opportunity areas of development within Maidenhead and how the missing links would be joined up to make connectivity better in Maidenhead Town Centre. The presentation included how the missing links would be joined and incorporated parking, offices, bars, cafes, restaurants and housing as well as open green spaces, a civic zone and extending Kidwells Park to make it more accessible.

 

The Chairman explained that there were a number of opportunity areas in Maidenhead and the Borough wanted one developer to regenerate all of them. A tendering process was carried out and Countryside was chosen by independent assessment. Countryside had £1.6bn of assets so they were not a small developer. They had successful schemes in Acton and also in Slough. Countryside were scored highly during the tender process and if anyone wanted to know more, they could visit www.rbdevelopments.co.uk which would provide a link to the developments proposed in Maidenhead. The four opportunity areas were all currently at the concept phase with no permanent plans in place at that time.

 

Residents wanted to know if the subway near to Waitrose would be opened up to cyclists and if Kings Street vehicle use could be limited to access only to prioritise cyclists and pedestrians. The Principal Transport Officer said that subway did not form part of the missing links bid as it was too prohibitively expensive. He added that Kings Street was not able to be limited to access only as there was disable parking, businesses and retail outlets that all needed access to that road. The Chairman said he would make a note of the subway by Waitrose suggestion as the Broadway and Nicholsons Car Parks were due to be demolished to create a 1,500 space car park while creating two way access so, the subway might be able to be incorporated there.

 

41.

Borough Local Plan Update

To receive a verbal update on the Borough Local Plan.

Minutes:

The Chairman updated the Forum on ongoing developments of the Borough Local Plan. He stated that Regulation 19 had closed on 27 September 2017 and the Council had received a huge amount of feedback and representation from residents on the last day of the consultation. Officers were going through all feedback and that was being transposed onto a form for submission to the Secretary of State by December 2017. The December deadline depended on how quickly the council was able to transfer the representations onto standard forms.

 

Susy Shearer commented that the forms were not very straight forward when she made representations. The Chairman stated every other Local Planning Authority had used the same software and that was why the Borough had used it. Councillor Beer also found the form very difficult to use and could not access it or get it to load. The Chairman stated there were various representations made regarding cycling but they were still being assessed. He added the deadline to make representations was extended by an additional month to help combat any issues. Once the data had been collated, it could be shared with the Cycle Forum.

42.

Any Other Business

·         Cycle Wayfinding

·         Cycling in Peascod Street, Windsor

·         Neighbourhood Plans

·         River Thames crossings

Minutes:

Cycle Wayfinding

 

Susy Shearer stated wayfinding and information about new signage in Town Centres was raised at the Visitor Management Forum; there was generally more signage to the  entrance in the town for tourists and residents. The Windsor Neighbourhood Plan Group had been looking at signage for tourists, cyclists and pedestrians. The group wanted better engagement that wold link tourism, cycling and residents with the Cycle Forum and the Visitor Management Forum. The Chairman commented that Members of the Cycle Forum should have a think about ideas to encourage cycling in the Borough and send them to The Principal Transport Officer.

 

Councillor Beer stated there were still signs in Old Windsor for the Thames Path which stated no cycling allowed but, that only applied to some parts of the Thames Path and not others. The Principal Transport Officer stated Anthony Hurst had been liaising with organisations that maintained the Thames Path to try and get the signage resolved. Susy Shearer said it would be raised as part of the Neighbourhood Plan to try and get cycling access along the whole of the Thames Path.

 

Residents wanted to know who shared use areas where both pedestrians and cyclists were present were being managed, following the tragic death of a pedestrian by a cyclist. The Principal Transport Officer stated the Council did not encourage shared use where possible but, it was extremely challenging. The Chairman agreed it should be a priority issue to protect both cyclists and pedestrians but, the problem was old road networks and limited space. The Principal Transport Officer confirmed that it was very rare in the Borough to have pedestrian fatalities caused by cyclists. The borough had very narrow roads without enough land to widen cycle paths.

 

Cycling in Peascod Street

 

Susy Shearer stated Peascod Street was a principal shopping area which had been pedestrianised for 22 years. There were no cycling signs at the top of the street but they were not visible to cyclists as they were placed too high up the posts. A further sign at the bottom of Peascod Street and to the left on Charles Street slightly lower down but, there were no other no cycling signs anywhere else despite there being six or seven entrances to the pedestrian areas. She added that cycling was on the increase on Peascod Street and it was only a matter of time before there was an accident. Susy Shearer added that cyclists were becoming more aggressive with an assault in Nicholsons Walk when a cyclist was asked to dismount but, there were no signs in the area to point out it was a no cycling zone. Other streets had far more signs. She added that signs should be on every lamppost in both directions of travel and at the right height. Councillor Yong suggested wardens issuing fines to discourage cyclists. The Chairman said he would get the signage checked and then get the wardens to patrol. The Principal Transport Officer said the sign very high up  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.