To receive a verbal report by Gordon Oliver on the above titled item.

The Chair introduced the above titled item. The Forum were told that there had been an independent boundary review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) and that as a result there had been a recommendation to reduce the number of councillors from 57 to 41. The Forum were told that in conjunction with the boundary review that the Constitutional review had also taken account of the number of committees, forums and panels that the Council serviced and that it was notably higher than other comparable local authorities. Gordon Oliver informed the Forum that it had been agreed at the main Council debate in June 2018 that a number of panels/forums had been agreed for deletion / restructuring and circulated a list accompanied by the rationale for all of the proposals.  It had been proposed that the Cycle Forum would be subsumed by the newly-created Infrastructure Overview & Scrutiny Panel, Windsor Town Forum and Maidenhead Town Forum. It was highlighted that dependant on the subject matter that the proposal for any items discussed at Cycle Forum would be raised and considered at the new Infrastructure Overview & Scrutiny Panel or either Maidenhead/Windsor Town Forum as appropriate. It was confirmed that the new structure with the deleted Forums/Panes/Committees and the reduction of members would take effect from May 2019. It was noted that there would be no further servicing of the Forum by Democratic Services as it would not exist within the council committee structure. 

David Lambourne felt the focus of the Cycle Forum would be lost within the overarching Overview & Scrutiny panel and that this had been a cost saving exercise. He also said that he felt the changes would limit the valuable input from residents and that he felt councillors had been treated badly as their workloads would increase without an added financial imbursement. Councillor Lion stated that the recommendation to reduce the number of councillors had come from the LGBCE who was independent of the Council and that Councillors had the opportunity to vote in relation to the recommendations independently of the party whip. Councillor Beer stated that there had been approximately 10-11 members who had opposed or abstained from voting on the recommendations and that he had voted against the recommendation. Councillor Beer felt that the new proposed structure would not take into account the values and views of Cycle Forum attendees.

The Chair reminded the Forum that each ward was reviewed by their population demographic and that the number of councillor representation had been assessed independently by the LGBCE. Susy Shearer stated that there would be limitations to the way in which Cycle Forum attendees could interact with the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Panels and that there would be no opportunity to engage in detailed and wide ranging issues. She also felt current attendees of the Cycle Forum had the opportunity to have engaged discussions with no time limitations and that with restricted times to address Overview & Scrutiny Panel / Town Forums in future that it would be impossible to make use of the valuable experience of Cycle Forum members to progress the cycling agenda. Mark Powell thought that having cycling considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Panel would allow cycling to be considered in a more integrated manner. The Chair stated that the group could meet independently of the council as a consultative group. Susy Shearer stated that she had been looking at alternative models for local cycling groups to engage with the council, citing West Berkshire Spokes which had taken on the administration of the Cycle Forum in West Berkshire and the London Cycling Campaign which had a formal constitution and was a key consultee on cycling issues . Members felt that democratic representation and support was vital and that there would be difficulty in communicating, noting key decisions and administering minutes without the dedicated clerking support. The Democratic Services officer clarified that at present there was no planned additional resource that could support the Forum moving forward as resourcing had been based on the revised council committee structure from May 2019. However, if councillors were to attend then meeting rooms could be made available.

ACTION- That a formal response be drafted as soon as possible and sent on behalf of the Cycle Forum to Full Council expressing disappointment at the deletion of the Forum.

Members were unsure how the new forum would work within the new proposed structure and were hesitant to support the proposal. Members queried whether there could be a review and felt that there was a lack of support for the Forum by Councillors. Members discussed ways of working such as use of online tools and whether Gordon Oliver could continue supporting an external consultative group. Gordon confirmed that he could be able to provide support to the group in his capacity as Principal Transport Planner.

Members discussed their dissatisfaction in the decision to delete the Forum without consultation from the Forum attendees.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: THAT: The Cycle Forum is resolved to express its grave concerns at the council’s decision to disband the forum as this would result in a loss of specialist knowledgeand therefore request the continuation of the Cycle Forum from May 2019 as a sub-committee of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny panel.

(The motion was jointly proposed by Councillors Beer & D Wilson and resolved unanimously