A council insists that it is not stopping cyclists from using a cycling café in Berkshire – despite having obtained an injunction that in effect does exactly that.
On Saturday, we reported how the owner of the Velolife cycling café in Warren Row, Berkshire, had received an enforcement notice preventing cyclists from meeting there.
> Council says cyclists can’t meet at Berkshire cycling café
Several cycling clubs based nearby the café, which lies three and a half miles south west of the Berkshire town of Henley-on-Thames, also received injunction notices telling them they could not visit the café at any point during an organised ride.
The issuance of the enforcement notices follows a planning dispute dating back to 2017, the year after Lee Goodwin took over the premises that formerly operated as a pub called The Snooty Fox which had been closed for 18 months and struggling for a couple of years before that.
In response to our story, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which obtained the injunction, insisted that cyclists could still use the café, but “cyclists’ meets” were not allowed.
A spokeswoman for the council told road.cc: “The planning inspector has made it clear that groups of cyclists meeting outside Velolife café cause a nuisance to nearby residents.
“The appeal decision has concluded that the lawful use of the site is as a café with cycle repair. In this decision the planning inspector upheld and varied the enforcement notice and deemed that cyclist meets should not take place at the café but that cyclists are still welcome to use the café facilities but must not congregate outside.”
That appears to introduce an ambiguity to the interpretation of an earlier planning decision, as to whether or not cyclists are allowed to meet there; does a group of three or four friends, for example, who arrange to meet there or stop on a ride, constitute a “cyclists meet”?
In 2017, following a complaint from a nearby resident, Goodwin had received an enforcement notice requiring him to cease using the premises as a café, meeting place, cycle repair facility and for retail use.
He appealed that decision, and was permitted to carry on using them as a café with a bike workshop, but not for retail.
The inspector who made the appeal decision also changed the words “meeting place” to “cyclists’ meet,”.reasoning that the term“meeting place” was wide in its meaning and could encompass a range of purposes, “whereas the allegation is intended to target the use of the land as a place where cyclists meet prior to departing on organised rides and events.”
She added that if planning permission were given for use as a “cyclist’s meet,” events could be held more frequently, “and this element could intensify.”
The planning inspector also restricted Velolife’s opening hours, so it could only trade between 9am and 7pm.
On Saturday, Goodwin told road.cc: “We were happy with the decision because we could still have cyclists come through and use us as a cycling stop. All we were not to do was organise club rides that started at Velolife – which we don’t do.
“However, the council decided to take the notion that a ‘cyclists’ meet’ encompassed any gathering of cyclists before, during or after a ride of any sort.”
The enforcement notice received by Goodwin last week stated: “It is the Council opinion that [cyclist meets] involves, and will include the gathering of cyclists for organised rides, whether they start, finish, or are constructed to use the land and building during such events. If, at any stage during a cyclist’s meet, the activity is engaged on the land or in the building will constitute a breach of the requirements to cease the use.”
Goodwin said he was worried that the council’s narrow interpretation of the term could result in Velolife going out of business.
He explained: “Even if the council and I are having a slight difference of opinion on what the inspectorate actually had in mind, with the council’s opinion they can prosecute me and force me to stop cyclists coming on site and basically destroy my business, where myself I have no access to that.
“I have to apparently sit and take it. When we do finally land up in court – and the earliest will be in November – I won’t have a business to defend if they stop cyclists coming on site.”
We have asked the council to clarify its position, on a number of points:
If a cyclist rides to the cafe with friends, or a cycling group or club, and use the facilities, the council appear to define that as breaking the injunction. So what is the definition of ‘organised’ here? And how exactly are cyclists “welcome”?
We’ve also pointed out that the injunction goes on to state that cycle club members cannot meet at the cafe “arriving by any means, car, van or cycle, at any time of day or night”. So two friends that happen to be members of the same cycling club that independently drove to the cafe and met each other would be breaking the injunction. What specific issue is this restriction designed to address?
We have also approached national cyclists’ charity Cycling UK for a comment on the issue.






















76 thoughts on “Council hits back in Velolife cycle cafe row – cyclists CAN use cafe insists statement… they just can’t “meet” there or congregate outside”
Presumably if there’s a fire,
Presumably, if there’s a fire, everyone has to evacuate the building and congregate at a specific area outside. Is that not allowed?
Presumably, cyclists can’t leave the premises at the same time either, or arrive there at the same time, even if it’s people who don’t even know each other because they still constitute a “group”.
It really is past time that discrimination against cyclists was treated as a hate crime. (I appreciate that this isn’t the most insidious of examples.)
So I can go there on my own
So I can go there on my own but I’m not allowed to meet anyone there.
As a planner…seems like a
As a planner…seems like a very perverse and ott response from the council. It’s almost unenforceable in my view. As it other groups, independent of the cafe, are organizing the rides or ‘meets’ – it’s out of the business owners control. The activity described in the notice seem like usual activities that happen at a cafe…
How can a cyclist or group of cyclists use a cafe without congregating outside – do they not have to park and lock their bikes? Can they congregate in silence?
I would suggest that the ‘planning’ case (forget about common sense) wasn’t properly presented by the cafe owner to the council or inspector. I’m going to have a look at it from a planning perspective.
“He explained: “Even if the
“He explained: “Even if the council and I are having a slight difference of opinion on what the inspectorate actually had in mind, with the council’s opinion they can prosecute me and force me to stop cyclists coming on site and basically destroy my business, where myself I have no access to that.”
That will be a very interesting case indeed if it came to court.
Let’s say roadcc readers congregate from all parts of the UK, how ill that play out in court?
I guess it deoends whether it can be before a jury or not.
“the Royal Borough of Windsor
“the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which obtained the injunction”
roadcc are you going to tell us what the injuction is then ?
What is the wording? Who does it apply to? What if Kingston Cycling Club or Weybridge Cycling Club turn up does it apply to them ?
No point writing these stories without any proper information bearing in mind you previous put “Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead issued an injunction barring cyclists from meeting there ” now you say they obtained an an junction. Issuing and obtaining an injunction are rather different things.
What if I belong to a club
What if I belong to a club that has not had one of these letters and we don’t read The Internet and we meet there? Can we break an injunction that we’re unaware of? Will the owner have to stop serving and rush outside to tell us off?
what if we meet there but we’re all wearing random, non-club kit? Can we be breaking an injunction then since (technically) we’re not a club.
What if we drive to the cafe in civvy clothes, without bikes? We’re still members of the same cycling club, and we’ve met there, but there’s no way for anyone to tell that…
I think there’d be some entertaining mileage in bunging the local Hell’s Angels group a few quid and getting them to meet there. On their biggest, loudest bikes.
Hirsute,
Hirsute,
“roadcc are you going to tell us what the injuction is then ?”
The link in the article above leads to Road CCs previous article, which in turn includes a link to the planner’s decision.
Crazylegs,
You’re not the first to invoke the Angels of Hell, but on reflection, let’s hope that cafe has a supply of long spoons!
pockstone wrote:
There is a link to the Planning Insector’s Enforcement Appeal about the cafe. That is not the same as an injunction issued against a club, as inspectors do not issue an injunction, a court does that.
There is a world of difference between Planning Enforcement about land or a building and an injunction against a clubs (or clubs).
I’m still wanting to know exactly what this injunction is and how it was served against cycling clubs. And does it have to name members ?
I also note
61. Other conditions suggested by the Council concern the cyclists’ meet. I cannot
see how it would be possible, or within the appellant’s control, to limit the
number of cycles and riders on the premises at any one time as this would be
dependant upon the actions of the cyclists themselves. In any event even a
few congregating cyclists early in the morning could cause disturbance to the
neighbouring residents. Such a condition would be unreasonable, give rise to
enforcement difficulties and would not, in any case, overcome the harm. This is
a further reason that leads to my decision to refuse permission for this element.
hirsute wrote:
Good points Hirsute,sorry, I had thought perhaps you had come late to this story.
I’m also at a loss as to how a local authority can take steps to limit the actions of unrelated organisations (and members of those organisations who are also private individuals) when enforcing planning law. It’s odd that they seem able to do it for cyclists, yet I read of many a car enthusiasts ‘meet’ resulting in nuisance and injury. Not once have I heard of the owners of the car parks or neighbouring businesses being held to account.
This whole story seems to be disappearing down a rabbit hole.
Streisand effect
Streisand effect
I hadn’t realised how close
I hadn’t realised how close this was to Reading, just off the NCN4 I believe, where it runs through Knowl Hill (also near Crazies Hill and Cockpole Green). I shall be riding there soon, and will try not to meet other cyclists when I am there.
ktache wrote:
Yeah, it’s pretty close. You should definitely go, the cake and coffee is great, but definitely don’t meet any cyclists there as that would be naughty.
Still can’t make a lot of
Still can’t make a lot of sense of it all. What constitutes ‘meeting’ someone? You can enter the cafe at around the same time but you mustn’t speak to each other? Can you nod in acknowledgement?
Can the clubs have organised rides that end 20 yards down the road and then start another one 20 yards up the road in the other direction? Leaving people to decide what to do in between as private individuals?
I’m not a legal expert, but seems to me it would be more sensible to have objective rules about keeping noise levels down at certain hours and not leaning objects (including bikes) against other people’s fences or gates etc, rather than trying to define people by mode of transport.
So one individual’s complaint
So one individual’s complaint can essentially shut down a business? Is there any record of the council investigating the situation to make sure this isn’t a tempest created by some punter who hates cyclists?
Burke wrote:
Thought something similar, maybe a councillor lives nearby.
So one individual’s complaint
So one individual’s complaint can essentially shut down a business? Is there any record of the council investigating the situation to make sure this isn’t a tempest created by some punter who hates cyclists?
Everyone should just turn up
Everyone should just turn up and meet without bikes and shout and makes lots of noise. See what happens…..
So, are we arranging a meet
So, are we arranging a meet there followed by a crowd fund to test the case in court?.. Surely unenforceable on the evidence so far.
So, are we arranging a meet
So, are we arranging a meet there followed by a crowd fund to test the case in court?.. Surely unenforceable on the evidence so far.
I suggest that someone does a
I suggest that someone does a little bit of digging here. I hears a rumour that the former owner of the pub also owns the house where the complaint originates from. I’m not sure if that’s true – it could of course, be a scurrilous rumour – but it’s entirely feasible that there is a plan here to get the business closed down so that the entire plot of land could be sold at a tidy profit for redevelopment…
Zebulebu wrote:
No rumour – it’s stated in the documents linked to in the original story.
I think the house is also currently on the market.
Podc wrote:
So it is… https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-70876588.html I guess they’ll be legally obliged to state they’ve had a dispute with their neighbour on the conveyancing docs…
OMG! just noticed the property details describe it as a “quiet location”. Someone is a telling a fib somewhere!!
HoarseMann wrote:
I’m not sure that is the same house. I’ve not been able to find any ad online, I’m just fairly sure there was a for sale board outside when I visited recently.
We decided it wasn’t for us as the cycle ride to Velolife would have been a bit short!
EDIT: Just checked on streetview and that does look like the house
Good spot.
Podc wrote:
Inspection of street view and the photos in the listing leave me convinced it is the property in question.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I’m not sure that is the same house. I’ve not been able to find any ad online, I’m just fairly sure there was a for sale board outside when I visited recently.
We decided it wasn’t for us as the cycle ride to Velolife would have been a bit short!
EDIT: Just checkesd on streetview and that does look like the house
Good spot.
— HoarseMann Inspection of street view and the photos in the listing leave me convinced it is the property in question.— Podc
I think it would be ok to congregate if everyone was on knotted pine bicycles.
Velolife should rename itself
Velolife should rename itself to the “Solitary Cyclist Cafe”…
It’s just outside Henley. The
It’s just outside Henley. The residents of there ran an Iron distance Triathlon event out town a few years back.
Compare with the warm welcome that other towns give their events. Any kind of mass participation event like that is inspiring to see and a real joy to watch and support.
I assume that the residents behind it were dead in their hearts.
9am opening isn’t too early is it ? Surely neighbours can’t complain about clicking pedals at 9am on a Sunday ?
It’s just outside Henley. The
It’s just outside Henley. The residents of there ran an Iron distance Triathlon event out town a few years back.
Compare with the warm welcome that other towns give their events. Any kind of mass participation event like that is inspiring to see and a real joy to watch and support.
I assume that the residents behind it were dead in their hearts.
9am opening isn’t too early is it ? Surely neighbours can’t complain about clicking pedals at 9am on a Sunday ?
Henley-on-Thames is in
Henley-on-Thames is in Oxfordshire btw.
Popped in for lunch. Do what
Popped in for lunch. Do what you can to support the cafe. Things were calm and the food as good as ever.
Word is that the council itself is not supportive of the EO/their decision and this back-tracking is the start of the process to deflate the situation. The owner seems confident that things will get sorted (in terms of cyclists access, but not organising rides) before November. Let’s hope for some clarity in the next few days.
Can you imagine any other
Can you imagine any other social group being treat this way? Imagine if they stopped religious groups meeting before prayer or whatever.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Presumably there’s nothing to stop worshippers turning up at St Paul’s (100 metres down from Velo Life, toward the complainant) on their bikes?!!
I wonder if their congregation could do with a boost? We could always go for coffee afterwards…
What with all the ‘cyclists’
What with all the ‘cyclists’ driving there in cars, Do-nutting car enthusiasts, club cyclists not in club kit, club cyclists in club kit stopping 20 yards short, several potential housebuyers, disaffected Henley triathletes, ramblers, RickRude and his phalanx of gay cyclists, the Fire brigade, Ktache and Schlep not talking to each other, Barbara Streisand, two lots of Hell’s Angels, a John Lewis van delivering the long spoons, the BSA owners club and one harassed council officer…it’s going to be a busy weekend in Warren Row.
I wonder if the owner of Ivy
I wonder if the owner of Ivy Cottage which from the posts is in the pub car park retains any legal right of access through said car park. If not I’d be tempted to lock up at least outside business hours or maybe introduce parking fees for non-customers.
To whom do I complain to have
To whom do I complain to have the noisy lot who turn up every Sunday morning at our picturesque local church? Ringing bells, singing loudly… hooligans the lot of them. I understand they also serve bread and wine during their meet, which was definitely not in the original planning application.
Small (posh) town England,
Small (posh) town England, makes you proud doesn’t it?
Get the local Harley owners club to
meetassemble there, show the sad nimbys the grass is always greener…Does Elaine Paige live nearby
Does Elaine Paige live nearby?
Kendalred wrote:
Yeah, bring her along as well!
pockstone wrote:
ask her to sing. That’ll teach them what ‘disturbing’ means.
ConcordeCX wrote:
I think the council would have valid grounds for taking out an injunction; cruel and unusual punishment.
So in other words, go to the
So in other words, go to the place for some bike stuff, have a coffee or some cake. But don’t speak to anyone other than the staff. Keep your head down over your phone/tablet/laptop, use Facebook messenger or Instagram or email to communicate with the person sitting next to you. Then leave.
That makes sense.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Sounds like Starbucks.
Nah, I’m sure this guy pays
Nah, I’m sure this guy pays appropriate levels of taxation.
I still don’t understand how
I still don’t understand how an injunction can be made against groups of people meeting on a private business premises, undertaking a lawful activity and not behaving in a demonstrably antisocial way.
It sets a very worrying precedent if councils can ban cyclists from meeting as a group as they pose a ‘nuisance’.
What next… the club run?
If being Anti-Cyclist was a
If being Anti-Cyclist was a hate crime, this would be unenforceable. Imagine if it was “No black people could meet here”, or “No Jews allowed to meet here”, Or “No Gay people allowed to meet here”. Anyone on here able to start one of those parliamentary debate voting things?
cyclesteffer wrote:
Among the many things Boris likes to have between his legs is a bike – so you never know.
Bojo was once upon a time MP for nearby Henley and I believe the MP for Maidenhead has a lot more time on her hands these days…
Oh no! Dominic Cummings has arrived to beat the crap out of me!!
is this story worth wafting past the Private Eye Rotten Boroughs column? “Don’t get your bib shorts in a bundle (Mr Roy)”
Perhaps CUK could buy the house on sale and it could become a home for veteran cyclists? “Dear Cycling Magazine, do you have any advice for cycle camping in three feet of snow across the Welsh mountains in January…
I am in my 84th year and my husband is 85, and we’re finding our annual ascent on our Mercians of the Tourmalet quite difficult these days, please could you…”
Have a look at @RBWM on
Have a look at @RBWM on Twitter. They’re coming in for some right grief over their intended “clarification”. The poor social media bod has been hitting the same copy/paste reply over and over and none of it has actually answered the questions that are being raised.
There were two really simple options for this:
1) write to the cafe owner and say “we’ve had a couple of complaints about noise, can you pop a sign outside saying “please be considerate to our neighours, keep the noise down”.
2) email the complainant saying “dear sir/madam, please fuck off”
But oh no, they’ve gone down the third option of shooting themselves in the foot and spending a lot of council tax money in doing so.
Normally noise complaints have to be documented to prove it’s actually “unreasonable”. If you make a complaint, the council would normally ask you to keep a log of it, they may even give you a decibel meter and then they’d analyse it based on the venue.
Might be worth a FOI to ask what records and proof they’ve got of the “disruption”…
Another entertaining option might be to meet up there and loudly exclaim “ooh, fancy seeing you here!” and “I was just out for a SOLO ride and thought I’d stop for a coffee, you must have been doing the same?!”
The injunction
The injunction
Completely unenforceable and
Completely unenforceable and perverse planning decision. All they need to do is say “this isn’t a cyclist’s meeting, we’re leg shaving enthusiasts, who happened to travel here by bike”.
It sure has been a busy time
It sure has been a busy time on @rbwm with a lot of people speculating about “does a councillor live nearby?” Stuff. Let’s not rush to believe the very worst, but having seen an extract of the injunction I’m really surprised that it’s come to this.
You do wonder if there’s another sub-text: I saw a letter to the Henley Standard in 2012 complaining about groups of cyclists on local country lanes – I drafted a really witty A Doctor Writes… response, but never got round to sending it in. Mr Motorist probably wants his drive-able roads clear of pesky cyclists.
I say all this as someone who believes that nuisances affect people’s lives and there should be ways to resolve these. Your dog might be happily (or unhappily) barking its head off in the garden, but what about the bed-bound person in the next door back bedroom, or the person that’s received bad news just as your barbecue kicks off. You may not know whether or not these these things are present, but you should consider the possibility.
Anyway, My Twitter challenge for the council to spell out how it’s gone about this – the main point is are they sure that the actions taken are proprtionate to the problem? So what’s their assessment of the problem on the ground? How many Lycra louts, when, for how long, what happened to cause the alleged nuisance? (I’d want some convincing of a pretty bad nuisance impairing people’s lives there.) What’s been done so far to address any issues with what response – that’s an important missing piece in this story. have they followed their enforcement policy, are the actions taken properly authorised?
never let the facts get in the way of a good story. If it should turn out that at intervals from 8:30 every Weekend 10 months of the year there are 30 people congregating, clattering about in their SPD-R cleats, smoking, talking loudly/shouting, littering, throwing their leg over the crossbar, then we have to accept responsibility and try to be better neighbours. Even if all that’s true, I still think much worse happens at sea. A few drops of mineral oil in your freehub might be all it takes.
David9694 wrote:
Who the hell is ‘we’ in your comment?
The ‘injunction’ as worded seems to apply to all ‘cyclists’, whether part of a club or not, even if they arrive by car. This makes no sense at all. Are they saying nobody who has ever ridden a bike can use the cafe? I don’t even understand how it is an ‘injunction’ anyway. Which court granted it? Nothing about this makes any sense.
Has there even been a case of such a ruling about ‘motorists’? or ‘pedestrians’? No pedestrians are to use the cafe as a meeting place, whether they arrive by car or bus or bike?
The whole story is baffling.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Does it matter if you’re a large group but not an organised cycle club?
Would a group of school kids who’ve just passed their Bikeability be allowed to stop there or is that an organised club meet?
What about if five people turn up, then another two who happen to know the first group but aren’t in the same club? Would alarms sound and the council would send in the SPG?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
If you refer to the screenshot from RoseRider, I’d say that is the enforcement notice served on the cafe owner to use the cafe in a certain way in accordance with planning restrictions.
I don’t think any injunction has been served on the clubs (and I can’t see how or who would apply for one showing sufficient evidence – and against whom exactly would it be issued) and roadcc haven’t helped by saying the Council issued an injunction on the clubs then next story the Council obtained an injunction, then next story the Council wrote to the clubs.
hirsute wrote:
I agree with your interpretation of the text, but it seems very unfair on the cafe owner.
The first part is easy enough to implement – a couple of signs and something on their website, if they have one, saying no cyclists’ meetings or congregations.
The second part though strikes me as being impossible for the staff in the cafe to enforce as they have no control over whether hordes of cyclists turn up in disobedience of the sign, like waves breaking on the shore.
The council seem to be a congregation of Cnuts, and expect the cafe owner to behave like one.
They’re getting torn to
They’re getting torn to pieces on Twitter and it’s been going on all through the night
As others have said, no
As others have said, no evidence of any disruption or annoyance has yet been provided, and for such heavy handed action, the council would have to have documented, verified proof, otherwise this is blatant anti-cyclist discrimination. I would have thought their enforcement action could be challenged on lack of evidence amongst many other grounds.
Even if they have such evidence, they have to demonstrate that their response is reasonable and proportionate, which seems unlikely.
burtthebike wrote:
At least as it’s been reported, it’s not only discrimination, it’s discrimination against a group which is not even clearly defined. As it explicitly says it doesn’t even matter how they travel to the cafe, then ‘cyclist’ can only be taken to mean ‘anyone who occasionally uses a bicycle’. Which makes the whole thing bonkers.
I would claim to be
I would claim to be transvehicular and say I’m not a cyclist as I identify as a motorist.
Surely it would also be really bad press if say, a group of disabled cyclists where barred from meeting up?
And now the leader of RBMW
And now the leader of RBWM chimes in, this is getting surreal.
https://twitter.com/MrSimonDudley/status/1159166921671139328?s=20
dodgy wrote:
Somebody should ‘meet’ him there. That’ll make him disappear as physics and logic break down.
dodgy]
And that twitter thread includes this gem:
“Sean Kalkwarf
@TwittId
·
1h
Replying to
@MrSimonDudley
@KateAllan16
and 2 others
What makes it worse is that I am a direct neighbor of the cafe and I can confirm that I have had no contact from RBWM to find out if more than one neighbor has an issue with the Cafe and/or its clients. I don’t think they’ve done their jobs properly…”
And this one:
Stan
@geckobike
Replying to
@RBWM
so the previous planning for flats was rejected (in part) because the loss of the pub would mean the loss of refreshments for people visiting the area … INCLUDING CYCLISTS….
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBbqTDpWkAIe_5j?format=jpg&name=small
Sheesh, all the council do on
Sheesh, all the council do on Twitter is robotically post the exact same bit of ill-defined nonsense over-and-over-again, responding to any request for clarification or proper definitions with the same drivel.
What is it with boroughs with ‘Royal’ in their name? There seems to be a pattern there. I think the Royal connection may not be unrelated to the imperious refusal to acknowledge the rights of others if they clash with someone’s self-interest.
Seems like this is yet
Seems like this is yet another council abusing its powers.
From the posted image of the injunction it implies only one cyclist at a time is allowed on the premises no matter how they choose to arrive (including walking).
As worded the “injunction” above seems unenforceable and unreasonable, and whilst I am no lawyer, the government guidelines seem clear that the limitations RBWM have placed are probably illegal.
But to prove this would mean Velolife would have to take RBWM to court, they would probably win but I’m in the dark as to whether they could reclaim court costs when suing councils, even if they can – a possible outcome could be that the court completely revokes the planning consent and forces Velolife to go back through the submission process, which I’m would probably lead to fruther unrecoverable costs.
On the one hand this is good advertising for Velolife but they run the risk of being closed down should they allow two or more cyclists on the premises at the same time.
makadu wrote:
The original story gave a link to an appeal and the planning inspector’s adjudication so it has already had a review. It’s normal to have restrictions on usage in residential areas.
I think we can all see the potential for disruption to residents but how much evidence is required to support this appears to be subjective.
It’ll be interesting trying
It’ll be interesting trying to enforce that. As soon as you dismount your bike, you’re no longer a cyclist, so ride to cafe, dismount outside, meet in car park (don’t be tempted to mount the bike!), walk back onto road, cycle away.
But then, whoever drafted this “law” probably doesn’t define a “cyclist” as someone who happens to be mounted on a bike, but a person “dressed like Bradley Wiggins” on a “professional racing bicycle worth several thousand pounds”, who can simultaneously ride on the pavement, jump red lights and slow all the cars down.
Surely the council leNing so
Surely the council leNing so heavily on ‘meeting’ means riding there is fine even in a group. But dont meet another group from your club who travelled there by a different route.
a copy of the letter sent to
a copy of the letter sent to the local clubs. If you wish to support please complain to the RBWM here: https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/forms/form/152/en/complaint_form?fbclid=IwAR2DnLF2au61Kp32SmBmoffHRUVfCt_PbrXHYJtLW6o02ryoC5lAUqVxNRI.
Twitter: #savevelolife
Here’s the link to the
Here’s the link to the Planning Enforcement Document
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=29547330
“Regarding cyclists’ meets, these occur on Saturday mornings with the car park area being the place where cyclists congregate prior to departing on an organised ride. There is also some evidence of meets prior to summer evening rides. It is said that, on occasions, only a couple of cyclists have attended. On other occasions, however, there have been twenty or so cyclists. The numbers involved, together with the frequency and regularity of events, indicate that the land is used as a cyclists’ meet to a clear and discernible extent. “
You’re welcome everyone!
Second letter sent to clubs-
Second letter sent to clubs- still not clear what constitutes an “Organised Cycling Meet” and how you can use the cafe but not when it is not at the start, end or stop off during a ride /”cycling meet”. And how to do that without congregating outside- how would we dismount and hang the bikes up etc. And, say I drive there to do a dog walk and meet a friend, I am still in breach as I have ridden a bicycle previously so I am a “cyclist” and I’m not allowed to “meet” by travelling to VL via car…
It doesn’t seem in line with council regeneration and cycling strategy plans
6.32 We will: Enhance existing recreational cycling routes / develop new routes in order to meet local demand. Work with Sustrans, neighbouring authorities and local landowners to enhance local elements of the National Cycle Network and develop / link to new NCN Routes. Work with partners in the visitor economy to promote sustainable tourism, including cycle touring.
Full details here
https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/2775/cycling_strategy_consultation_draft_-_october_2016.pdf
#savevelolife
Thanks RoseRider for bringing
Thanks RoseRider for bringing more clarity to the situation.
The second letter says “I would like to apologise for the suggestion we might take enforcement action against your club. I can confirm that this is not our intention.”
Which seems very strange as threatening:- “The council is investigating the position with regard to criminal offences…now unlawful activity…as a named defendant…I trust this clarifies the matter”
David Sharkey does not seem to have read the first letter, which seemed to clarify the councils positon very well. The threatening tone did imply more than the mere suggestion of enforcement action, to me at least, and which appeared to be slightly more than an intention.
I visited the cafe today, and noticed that the driveway to the “For Sale” property actually was between the former pub and the car/bike park. A group of cyclists were unfortunately discussing the matter at hand, which must have been driving someone utterly crazy.
ktache wrote:
They should count themselves lucky that they weren’t arrested, as they were clearly breaking the law, being a group.
UPDATE. There has been
UPDATE. There has been speculation that the neighbour or neighbours who made the original complaint must have friends in high places at the RBMW council. Speculate no more. Robert Anwyl-Hughes and Maureen Hunt live next door and near the cafe. They are both RBMW councillor members. You’re welcome!!!
It seems old Bob Anwyl-Hughes
It seems old Bob Anwyl-Hughes (who lives next to the cafe) has been to a few parish meetings where everyone agrees that the local area plan is to encourage cycling and local jobs, (as documented, amongst other activities in the area), it’s a mostly green belt area, cycling is mentioned as a factor in that numerous times….. but clearly this has nothing to do with what the council wants or what’s good for the area, this whole debacle is the very definition of NIMBY (or NIMFY if we’re being literal).
I think the council should
I think the council should take a good long hard look and the enforcement action appeal decision by her majestys planning inspectorate
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3188329&CoID=0
before threatening any legal action against velolife and cycling clubs.
They are going so far beyond the wording of the appeal decision that i would say they are in contempt of it, and action should be taken against them.
“We were not taking part in a
“We were not taking part in a ‘cyclists’ meet’, m’lud – we were a flashmob of people dressed in cycling gear.”
It would be a terrible shame
It would be a terrible shame for the NIMBYs if someone were to organise a time trial a few hundres metres away and send a stream of fast moving cyclists past at one per minute for an hour or so.