To receive the above report.

1.    Gordon Oliver, Principal Transport Policy Officer introduced the Cycling Strategy 2016-2026 (Consultation Draft) to Members of the Forum and highlighted the following key points:

Ø  The pre-consultation draft had been circulated to Members and then to the Forum.

Ø  It was a ten year strategy

Ø  The strategy draws on best practice.

Ø  3% of residents used bikes and cycling as a way of transport.

Ø  There were significant variations in cycle use across different areas of the Borough

Ø  There was also a difference in gender with four men to every woman cycling.

Ø  The strategy set the vision for cycling to be seen as a safe, attractive, healthy and normal form of everyday transport.

Ø  A key focus of the strategy was to connect residential areas to destinations.

Ø  The strategy used smart objectives which included:

o   15% increase in cycling

o   10% reduction in cycling related injuries

o   60% cyclist satisfaction.

Ø  The strategy aimed to tap into Public Health and Developer Contributions where possible to implement the strategy.

Ø  KPIs used for monitoring included:

o   Increase in cycling levels

o   Increase in the number of female cyclists

o   Reducing casualties

o   Satisfaction with cycling provision

o   Training children through Bikeability schemes

o   Reducing cycle thefts.

2.    The strategy divided the Borough into 10 areas and looked at existing cycling data and where casualties were occurring, the Borough’s cycling team had also consulted local Neighbourhood Plan Groups and requested their input. The draft Cycling Strategy gave the Forum the chance for early comment and feedback from members of the Forum were requested no later than 24 October 2016. Following that deadline, and once feedback had been collated, the strategy would then go out to the wider public.

3.    General comments made by the Cycle Forum Members on the Cycling Strategy included:

Ø  Paragraph 1.2 should read: This strategy builds and identifies our priorities for capital and revenue investment in cycling for the period 2016/17 to 2025/26.

Ø  Paragraph 1.3 should read: We will achieve this by providing a network of safe, convenient, connected and legible cycle routes and by improving road conditions so they are safer for and encourage cyclists.

Ø  Page 2 of the Cycling Strategy under Partnership Working should have a bullet point on liaising with schools and encourage children to cycle to school if safe to do so.

4.    Members of the Forum requested exact figures on how much funding per head of population the Borough was planning to spend on cycling and requested confirmation of whether or not the Borough was above the national average for the country. Susy Shearer stated that due to Crossrail, possible expansion of Heathrow and close proximity to London, it would be good to the funding per head of population looking more like the figures for London at £10 per head spent. The Principal Transport Policy Officer estimated that at the present time, spending equalled the national average at approximately £1.30 per head.

v  Action: The Principal Transport Policy Officer to confirm the exact figure for funding on cycling per head of population within the Royal Borough.

5.    In response to questions over how often the strategy would be reviewed once implemented, the Chairman agreed to review the Cycling Strategy annually. Forum Members stated the strategy had been very well done and was comprehensive and easy to relate to cycling areas members lived in.

6.    The Chairman confirmed there could be CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) and S106 (Section 106) money available to put towards implementation of the Cycling Strategy. He explained that when a developer builds something, they had to pay money for local infrastructure improvements. S106 had ended but, it might be possible to pool projects together to make one major project (it was possible to pool up to five projects), and that could raise contributions from CIL. However, CIL could only be paid once a development commenced works so it would take a while for funds to filter through. The Chairman added that Maidenhead Town Centre was rated £0 CIL due to the high costs of developing in the Town Centre; therefore, to add CIL to the costs would make developments unviable. CIL was charged to developments outside the centre of town and after the BLP (Borough Local Plan) was adopted, it might be possible to carry out a review of the CIL charges. In the cases of Windsor, the south of the borough and parts of Maidenhead, if there was a Neighbourhood Plan in place, in parished areas 25% of contributions went directly to parishes who could administer the funds towards schemes they chose. The Borough could work with the parishes and have a joint finance arrangement for cycle schemes.

7.    Members noted that in London, there were kerbs that separated cycle lanes from the roads but everywhere else, there was just a painted line which was not safe at all. Cllr Yong commented that cyclists were now allowed to cycle through Windsor Great Park after dusk and that if any cyclist got stopped by the Rangers, they were to let the Borough know so that any issues could be resolved.

v  Action: The Principal Transport Policy Officer to add a further bullet point under Partnership Working stating that the Council would liaise with schools and encourage children to cycle to school if it was safe to do so.

v  Action: The Principal Transport Policy Officer to add Ward Councillors, Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Plan Delivery Groups to list of Partnership Working.

8.    Cllr Yong stated the Council needed to work much closer with Network Rail to try and get cycle paths/lanes alongside train tracks and that as the MP for Maidenhead was now the Prime Minister, she may be able to negotiate with Network Rail as there was a need to make sure cycle paths were in place in the south of the Borough to help children get to school safely in rural areas. She added that the Council could try and get other neighbouring Borough’s together and invite Network Rail to the Town Hall for a face to face meeting to discuss possible proposals. The addition of cycle paths alongside train tracks would make it easier and safer for commuters to get to the train station and would reduce congestion.

Ø  Page 4 at the end of the paragraph at the top of the page, following the full stop, the Principal Transport Policy Officer should add: ‘This will be expanded to include other local authorities in neighbouring areas’.

Ø  Page 57 – Cycle parking in Windsor; the Principal Transport Policy Officer needs to check that potential cycle parking sites are not on private land.

Ø  Cllr D. Wilson to add a note in the BLP strongly encouraging new commercial developments to provide facilities for staff to be able to cycle to work such as showers and secure bicycle parking.

Ø  The Principal Transport Policy Officer to look into adding cycling events to the strategy.

v  Action: The Principal Transport Policy Officer to provide details of cycling accidents such as how they were caused, for the next meeting. To include a breakdown of age groups and female to male ratio.

Ø  Page 14 paragraph 6.14 – The Principal Transport Policy Officer to add comment regarding cyclists needing to use good quality D Locks to improve bike security.

Ø  Page 21 paragraph 6.38 – add bullet point: producing cycle route maps for users.

Ø  Page 22 paragraph 7.3 – include the LEP as a potential source of funding for the strategy.

v  Action: The Principal Transport Policy Officer to have a look and see if there is a way to amend Table 8.1 on page 23 to show targets met or unmet.

Ø  Page 27 – the Action Plan could show how developer contributions could help to improve infrastructure for cycling. Cllr Yong requested that the link to Ascot Gate be improved and suggested that the bridleway past Coworth Park be linked to the existing cycle route in Windsor Great Park at Blacknest Gate via the Virginia Water car park.

Ø  Page 31 – add the Council would try and improve linkages from Furze Platt into Cookham.

Ø  Page 67 – Savill Gardens should be listed as a community point of interest.

Ø  Page 71 – add Manor Youth Community Centre to list of local destinations.

v  Action: The Principal Transport Officer to see if parallel cycle crossings could be added to any zebra crossings in the Central Windsor area.