Council tweets letter explaining Velolife ban – and even its own leader comes out in support of café

I always get annoyed when I see people who live next to public venues like pubs/clubs complain about the noise when they full well know these places generate noise. 
 

The complainant apparantly is the ex-landlord of the pub which stood on the site of cafe, so while he was landlord of the it was ok with the noise late into the night whilst the cafe only opens during socialable hours...  

It's fine, just hold disorganised meets there instead.

'Dropped' mentions above the Council's enforcement powers under the EPA.  There seems to be a few commenters who, understandably, think this row is due to the kind of noise nuisance action a council would take under this Act. (A complaint/s would be needed, followed by evidence gathering, sound level meter readings etc. etc. and a subsequent enforcement notice) If only it were this simple. 

The issue at stake is the use of the land under Planning legislation, where the Planning authority can act to reduce a nuisance that hasn't happened yet, e.g. a food takeaway application might be refused because of the likelihood of litter or excessive traffic etc. Nimbys have clearly made a fuss because the change of use from pub to cafe has presented them with a different clientele and hours of operation to that which they're used to. (How they prefer  slamming car doors, revving engines  and drunken shouting at closing time to being gently awakened by the sweet sound of  cleats a'clipping and respectfully low key chit-chat is a mystery.)

One thing I can't understand is when and how 'cyclist's meet' became a recognised land use under planning legislation. I can think of a dozen cafes round here where cyclists congregate for coffee. Do they now need to apply for a change of use. What about the many car parks, petrol stations, quiet corners of parks etc. where clubs and groups of riding buddies regularly meet up? 

Well well well, look what someone has dug up.

https://twitter.com/Montydo85701767/status/1159800302293409792?s=20

Quote:

Hi Simon - I think I can help bring in some clarity. Cllr Robert Anwyl-Hughes lives at The Saxons next to the cafe and his colleague Councillor Maureen Hunt also lives nearby. Both members of the
@RBWM
council. Misuse of power? Surely not....!

Presumably if the cycling clubs who have an injunction could rename and change their regisitered address out of the region could then visit the cafe.

I hope for the business sake the council lose this and possibly visit the cafe for a pice of HUMBLE PIE. ...

I can't beleive that a council has issued an injunction based on the possibility that a noise nuisance "can be" created by a gathering of cyclists in the car park.

Threre is no evidence that any noise has "unreasonably and substantially interfered with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises", so no nuisance has occured.

The evidence form the planning inspector indicates that no noise monitoring or counting of meet sizes has taken place.

There is no breakdown of complaint numbers or how many residents have complained.

Everything rests on the hearsay of one resident who is coincidentally selling the house, so presumably doesn't want those pesky lyrca louts from clogging the car park when a prospective buyer calls.

What an odious NIMBY and a Rotten Borough! 

It’s this sort of persecution that is driving cycling underground

The most pertinent legislation used by local authorities to control unreasonable disturbance from noise is the Environmental Protection Act 1990. EHOs are empowered to assess statutory nuisance taking into account many factors that can be summarised as nature and extent. If there was any noise emanating from Velolife that reached statutory nuisance levels an abatement notice could easily be served.

This hasn't happened clearly because no unreasonable noise nuisance is present. That is why  Planning have been used by vexatious complainants to impose their wholly unreasonable demands. It would appear that there has been no evidence presented, that meets even the lower standard of proof (on the balance of probability). 

Additionally how are Planning Enforcement going to determine that meets are organised? Realistically the only way is if Officers access club forums and ride meeting places are stated as being at Velolife. Make the 'official' meeting place the corner of a road, 1 minute away and if club members just happen to stop at Velolife first, that's just individuals making their own decision. 

Easily got around, clubs would need to respect the conditions and meet up a mile away.  Arrive in ones and twos have refreshments and leave in small groups.  

Credit to secret squirrel for the planning link. I did notice three objections, two from the same address and one of support. The other objection did state they were a few hundred yards away from Velolife and I did read they objected among a few things to cyclists riding three or four abreast on the narrow road. There are quite a lot of issues raised by the neighbour for the council to assess.

I wonder if the council are up to speed on this as I notice the planning officer who appears to be involved at the time left in September 2018.

Road.cc wrote:

it is believed that they originate from one person who was previously the licensee of The Snooty Fox and who still lives next to the premises

I think you need to be careful about the licensee statement - I've been through most of the documents in this case and not come across anything that suggests that they have had any involvement other than as residents of the next door cottage. Happy to be proved wrong!

The fact that they are the main objector is a matter of public record on the council planning portal and they have been objecting to any planning application at the site since at least 2013 - well predating Velolife.

Linky to the planning site (look for entries marked comments - objection)

http://publicaccess.rbwm.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do?a...

I do have a small bit of sympathy for both the objectors - who have a right of access across the car park, a bit for the council who are trying to interpret the planning inspectors "cyclists meeting place" restriction without it being fully defined in what was otherwise a fairly even handed decision, and a sneaking suspicion that Velolife haven't been 100% considerate neighbours, and don't appear to have strictly followed planning themselves.

On balance though I still side with Velolife and watching the council dig themselves ever deeper with their mishandling of the situation is great popcorn entertainment.  They seem to have acted on this issue multiple times without engaging brain, or attempting to define any common ground or damp the flames and apply some common sense.  For instance the planning adjudicator made it clear it would be futile to try to coerce local clubs only for the council to try to do so so clumsily.

The objectors cottage is up for sale for 525k.  If we all chipped in a little we could get enough to buy them out and rent the cottage to Velolife as an extension, or even better as a Clubhouse for the newly formed Velolife CC.

It is a policy of mine to never work for, or live in, any place or organization with the word "Royal" in the title. Not so much because of my dislike for the concept of monarchy, but due to the sort of people the association attracts, or has concentrated over many generations of privilege.

'Cyclists' seem to have targets painted on their backs in this country. It's hard to imagine any other business, or its customers, attracting such punitive treatment from a council.

Anyone there play bagpipes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unipiper

I almost feel sorry for the poor social media person at RBWM. They'll be some random Comms person, probably fairly fresh out of uni just tweeting out what their senior managers put their way. Most council accounts get a handful of replies at best to their tweets - stuff like the museum having a new exhibition or the playground has been repaired and maybe some self-promotional fluff about Councillior Smith getting a prestigious community award for her tireless campaigning against litter in Dunney-on-the-Wold.

And suddenly, they had 800 replies to their tweet / letter and the poor social media person was copy/pasting the same response (which didn't answer any of the questions raised) and no doubt sitting there cursing the day they signed the "I accept this job" letter.

FWIW, I was chatting to a solicitor at work today who has a lot of experience in town and county councils. He has zero interest in cyclists or cycling so he's certainly not biased but I showed him the letter and he said that it was total bollocks, completely unenforceable and what on earth were their legal team thinking when they wrote it.

I rode there today, incredibly pretty part of the world.  It seemed unusually busy for a mid week cycle cafe.  Good mocha, and the brownie was alright, though I am a bit of a cake snob.  I will return to try some of the other cakes as they looked really good.

From Reading, just off the NCN4 after Warbrook, where the countryside gets to be proper countryside.  Nice afternoon out.

Maybe a FOI request can help confirm exactly how many complaints have been received if not necessarily from whom. The council can then be asked to balance what I expect to be single digit numbers of complaints against the numerous tangible benefits of the cycle cafe such as local taxes received, people employed,
etc and the not so tangible but no less valuable benefits of healthier public, less costs to the NHS due to healthier population, reduced congestion and pollution not to mention the inevitable vandalism and chav magnet properties of a vacant building becoming gradually more derelict.

I'll bring some spare ones from my parts box