To receive a report on the above titled item.

Gordon Oliver outlined the above titled report. The Forum were told that the report set out a proposal for a new circular recreational cycle route that connected Maidenhead, Cookham Rise, Cookham and Cookham Dean. It was highlighted that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead had been approached by local landowner, Richard Copas, regarding the proposed route and that it was intended to provide a safe, traffic free, facility that would link to the existing National Cycle Network Route 50 (NCN50) between Maidenhead and Cookham Rise which would follow a permitted path across Summerleaze estate. Members were informed that previously NCN50 was inaccessible to the majority of cyclists due to the modified barriers which had been designed to keep out trespassers on mini-motorbikes. The Forum were told that this issue had since been resolved and that the barriers had been made accessible when the route was transferred to a new alignment. 

The proposed cycle route would use a combination of established paths across private land and existing public rights of way. Members were told that although sections of private land were mostly in the ownership of the Copas family, discussions were underway with a number of third parties, such as the Chartered Institute of Marking and the National Trust regarding the other sections. It was outlined that there was no proposal to create a new public right of way as part of the scheme and that the cycle route would have permitted path status, but that RBWM would seek to secure long-term commitment to the scheme. Members were told that it would be preferential for the route to have an all-weather, bound surface that is accessible for the majority of bikes. It was highlighted that the final specification may need to vary along the route to reflect the need for access by farm vehicles; the need for access by equestrians and the impact on landscape and heritage in sensitive locations. There were some challenging sections which were highlighted, such as Winter Hill where the slope would allow cyclists to gather significant momentum and could prejudice the safety of other path users and it was confirmed that discussion with various stakeholders and user groups would address these issues. The Forum were told that the proposal had been identified within the adopted Cycling Action Plan but its status as a recreational facility meant that it was not high priority for delivery and that it was unlikely that council funds would be allocated to the scheme in the short to medium term.

At the conclusion of the report, Members discussed the following:

·         That this opportunity highlighted ways in which landowners could positively contribute to the borough and its cycle networks. Members expressed thanks to Mr Copas for the proposal. Members were concerned that if this proposal was not looked at with priority that it could dissuade land owners in the future to come forward and add to the cycling networks.

·         Members felt that interim work could begin and that some low-cost surfacing materials could be used initially.

·         It was discussed that some areas were overgrown by grass and that certain routes were utilised by both horse riders and cyclists which would need to be sign posted effectively.

·         Forum Members noted that some signage could be provided and work alongside the work of the Wayfinding Scheme which had been discussed at previous Forum meetings.

·         It was highlighted that the National Lottery Heritage Fund was keen to support projects that promote public access to heritage sites.

At the conclusion of the discussion members noted the content of the report and endorsed the proposal to develop the recreational cycle route.