Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Council lifts legal threat against cycling clubs who use Velolife café… but then tells owner he can’t let them visit

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead issues apology to clubs after meeting with British Cycling and Cycling UK

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has said it will not take legal action against cycling clubs or individuals who stop at Velolife café and has apologised for suggesting that it might. However, Cycling UK has warned that stopping at Velolife during an organised ride could still be considered a breach of planning requirements and could lead to action against the café itself.

Velolife, in Warren Row near Henley-on-Thames, has been at the centre of a planning dispute for the last couple of years and owner Lee Goodwin was recently issued with an injunction ordering him to stop cyclists from meeting at the café.

Similarly-worded enforcement notices were issued to a number of local cycling clubs, warning them that they could face legal action should their members stop at Velolife during an organised ride.

These letters to clubs have now been withdrawn.

Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, initially welcomed the news.

“Cycling clubs and their members shouldn’t be concerned about legal proceedings if they stop at a particular café, so we’re relieved that the council has now confirmed that it will not take any such action,” he said.

A joint statement issued yesterday on behalf of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, British Cycling and Cycling UK stated: “It has never been the council’s intention to stop a local business from thriving or prevent groups from enjoying the facilities at the café.

“However, in its role as a local authority the council must consider the rights of local residents. The council hope that with the support of British Cycling and Cycling UK we will be able to strike the right balance for all concerned.”

Duncan Sharkey, managing director at the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, added: “Ensuring that the café and those who want to use its facilities are able to continue, while respecting the rights of those who live nearby has proven tricky. However, I hope that by working together we will find a solution everyone is happy with.”

It later transpired that while the council had indeed agreed to lift the threat of legal proceedings against cycling clubs, they had simultaneously informed Goodwin that should a club stop at Velolife during an organised ride, it could lead to further action against him and his business.

Responding to this development late yesterday, Dollimore commented: “Yesterday, Cycling UK and British Cycling met with representatives from the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.  Subsequently, the Council confirmed that they were happy to withdraw enforcement letters sent to cycling clubs threatening legal action if they attended the Velolife Café.

"In a joint statement issued this morning, the Council then indicated that it would work to ensure that Velolife was able to continue, and that it was not its intention to stop people enjoying the facilities there.

"It is therefore incredibly frustrating and disappointing to have to issue this further statement a few hours later, following discussions with Velolife’s owner Lee Goodwin this afternoon and lengthy email exchanges with the Council.

"Cycling UK was informed a few hours ago that the Council had informed Mr Goodwin today that, notwithstanding their statement that no action would be taken against clubs attending Velolife, Mr Goodwin still needed to ensure that clubs did not use the café as a stop before, during or after organised rides, and that to do so would breach the terms of the draft injunction the Council has sought.

"Accordingly, Cycling UK are obliged to clarify their position, and notify local cycling clubs that whilst their attendance at Velolife will not lead to enforcement action against the club, any such attendance may be considered a breach of planning requirements by RBWM and lead to further action against Mr Goodwin.

"Cycling UK will be discussing matters with Mr Goodwin and considering what further steps need to be taken as a matter of urgency."

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

27 comments

Avatar
Rick_Rude | 4 years ago
0 likes

£7 for a drink and cake!

My sympathies are starting to fade for this place.

Avatar
Awavey replied to Rick_Rude | 4 years ago
5 likes
Rick_Rude wrote:

£7 for a drink and cake!

My sympathies are starting to fade for this place.

depends on the portion sizes doesnt it ? the photos of their cakes look huge, and £3 for a hot chocolate seems about right for an independent ime, the market clearly supports what they charge as I see people are now complaining its too busy.

but there are certainly more expensive cafes out there, theres one on the Suffolk coast, which is on a popular cyclist route, who charge £6 just for a bacon roll, and the coffee is decidedly on the small size & I certainly didnt remember getting much change from £10 when I visited, plus you wont find anywhere to park your bike, or sit down inside or outside.

so you pays your money and you takes your choice

Avatar
Simon E replied to Rick_Rude | 4 years ago
1 like
Rick_Rude wrote:

£7 for a drink and cake!

My sympathies are starting to fade for this place.

It's Berkshire. Nothing is cheap in the home counties.

And £3 is about right for a hot chocolate in most areas now while £4 for a big slice of homemade cake is not unrealistic, even up here in rural counties north of Watford. The coffee will surely be better than any of the chains, who charge almost as much for their tasteless brown water but give nothing back to the community.

Avatar
LastBoyScout | 4 years ago
0 likes

I'm a member of one of the local clubs that was sent the threatening letters - it was all over our Facebook page. Someone had, apparently, been watching and noting the clubs from the jerseys. I initially interpreted the letters as being a threat to prosecute on the basis of knowingly assisting someone to breach an enforcement notice.

I've only been to Velolife once, on a club ride, and found it was pretty average and expensive - nearly £7 for a hot chocolate and a piece of cake. I wouldn't have gone back on principle.

I was on a subsequent ride that was due to stop there, but we passed another club group just up the road and it was already packed when we got there with other clubs, so I do have some sympathy with whoever complained. It's quite small inside, given that it's an old pub, and the workshop/shop part didn't help by taking up a chunk of the available space. A few of my group did stop there, but the rest of us carried on home.

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 4 years ago
1 like

Just because someone complains doesnt mean their complaint has validity.  I mean we are talking about silent transport which doesnt pollute.  Its keeping a small village with a focal point alive.  

 

I suspect with ongoing public interest the council will back down once challanged about these complaints.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to CXR94Di2 | 4 years ago
6 likes
CXR94Di2 wrote:

Just because someone complains doesnt mean their complaint has validity.  I mean we are talking about silent transport which doesnt pollute.  Its keeping a small village with a focal point alive.  

I suspect with ongoing public interest the council will back down once challanged about these complaints.

Don't be too sure.  When I lived in Little Stoke, the local park was well used by Park Run, helping lots of otherwise idle people get exercise by running around it on the tarmac path that went around the park.  Because some footballers complained about them using the park for free, the parish council demanded that Park Run pay to use the park, which PR refused to do, as they would have to charge participants and the whole point is that it is free.  There was massive opposition to the council and lots of publicity, but they persisted and PR left to go to another park.  The final absurdity was that the unitary authority, South Gloucestershire, offered a grant to PR to pay the parish council, so one one council would be using public funds to pay another council so that PR would still use the park; they turned it down.  Some councillors appear only to have two attributes; stupidity and stubborn-ness.

https://www.parkrun.org.uk/littlestoke/

Avatar
exilegareth replied to burtthebike | 4 years ago
0 likes
burtthebike wrote:
CXR94Di2 wrote:

Just because someone complains doesnt mean their complaint has validity.  I mean we are talking about silent transport which doesnt pollute.  Its keeping a small village with a focal point alive.  

I suspect with ongoing public interest the council will back down once challanged about these complaints.

Don't be too sure.  When I lived in Little Stoke, the local park was well used by Park Run, helping lots of otherwise idle people get exercise by running around it on the tarmac path that went around the park.  Because some footballers complained about them using the park for free, the parish council demanded that Park Run pay to use the park, which PR refused to do, as they would have to charge participants and the whole point is that it is free.  There was massive opposition to the council and lots of publicity, but they persisted and PR left to go to another park.  The final absurdity was that the unitary authority, South Gloucestershire, offered a grant to PR to pay the parish council, so one one council would be using public funds to pay another council so that PR would still use the park; they turned it down.  Some councillors appear only to have two attributes; stupidity and stubborn-ness.

https://www.parkrun.org.uk/littlestoke/

Park Run's attitude, their smug PR and their general approach was the exact opposite of what's required to work with a parish council. No-one comes out of the Little Stoke row with any credit - not the councillors, not Prk Run and their well oiled PR machine, or the various local authorities.

Avatar
Pushing50 | 4 years ago
2 likes

Maybe Mr Jeremy Vine could persuade Mr Bob Anwyl-Hughes (Councillor who lives in Warren Row) onto his radio show to explain how all of this fiasco has been allowed to unfold. I, for one, am extremely curious to find out if the complainant and the councillor are both friends and neighbours (seeing as both live in Warren Row Road, Warren Row, RG10 8QS). Or maybe, they are one and the same. 

Avatar
muhasib replied to Pushing50 | 4 years ago
1 like
Pushing50 wrote:

Maybe Mr Jeremy Vine could persuade Mr Bob Anwyl-Hughes (Councillor who lives in Warren Row) onto his radio show to explain how all of this fiasco has been allowed to unfold. I, for one, am extremely curious to find out if the complainant and the councillor are both friends and neighbours (seeing as both live in Warren Row Road, Warren Row, RG10 8QS). Or maybe, they are one and the same. 

The two objections recorded on the planning portal are from different addresses than that of the said councillor.

Avatar
awalker | 4 years ago
2 likes

Lots more to come on this story apparently now the name of the sole complaint has emerged and their relationship with the council in question. Private Eyes' Rotten Boroughs column should be interested

Avatar
brooksby replied to awalker | 4 years ago
5 likes
awalker wrote:

Lots more to come on this story apparently now the name of the sole complaint has emerged and their relationship with the council in question. Private Eyes' Rotten Boroughs column should be interested

Links/citations, please!

Avatar
David9694 replied to brooksby | 4 years ago
2 likes
brooksby wrote:
awalker wrote:

Lots more to come on this story apparently now the name of the sole complaint has emerged and their relationship with the council in question. Private Eyes' Rotten Boroughs column should be interested

Links/citations, please!

 

+1

Avatar
billymansell replied to David9694 | 4 years ago
1 like
David9694 wrote:
brooksby wrote:
awalker wrote:

Lots more to come on this story apparently now the name of the sole complaint has emerged and their relationship with the council in question. Private Eyes' Rotten Boroughs column should be interested

Links/citations, please!

 

+1

https://twitter.com/JorvikLass/status/1162657402560352256

Avatar
brooksby replied to billymansell | 4 years ago
2 likes
billymansell wrote:
David9694 wrote:
brooksby wrote:
awalker wrote:

Lots more to come on this story apparently now the name of the sole complaint has emerged and their relationship with the council in question. Private Eyes' Rotten Boroughs column should be interested

Links/citations, please!

 

+1

https://twitter.com/JorvikLass/status/1162657402560352256

Thanks for that (not sure if the alleged circumstances exactly surprise me...).  Agree that someone ought to forward this story on to Private Eye.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to brooksby | 4 years ago
2 likes
brooksby wrote:
billymansell wrote:
David9694 wrote:
brooksby wrote:
awalker wrote:

Lots more to come on this story apparently now the name of the sole complaint has emerged and their relationship with the council in question. Private Eyes' Rotten Boroughs column should be interested

Links/citations, please!

 

+1

https://twitter.com/JorvikLass/status/1162657402560352256

Thanks for that (not sure if the alleged circumstances exactly surprise me...).  Agree that someone ought to forward this story on to Private Eye.

I've sent it to the BBC R4 prog "You and Yours" and I'm sure they've wasted no time in ignoring it.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to billymansell | 4 years ago
5 likes
billymansell wrote:
David9694 wrote:
brooksby wrote:
awalker wrote:

Lots more to come on this story apparently now the name of the sole complaint has emerged and their relationship with the council in question. Private Eyes' Rotten Boroughs column should be interested

Links/citations, please!

 

+1

https://twitter.com/JorvikLass/status/1162657402560352256

 

Still find that text mindboggling.  "Shall not allow the land to be used by congregating cyclists...not limited to club members...arriving by any means".

 

How on earth can that make any legal sense?  What does 'congregate' mean, and what is a 'cyclist' given that they still count as such even if they arrive on foot or by car?

Is the council going to send letters to every 'cyclist' in the country threatening them with legal action if they ever visit this cafe?  Do we all have to wear a special badge to indicate that we have been known to ride a bike?  Otherwise how can the cafe owner know we are 'cyclists' and that they are supposed to ban us from using the cafe?

 

It's just nuts.

 

Avatar
David9694 | 4 years ago
6 likes

There’s a lot of excitement over on the Twitter channel linked above by Chris Boardman - people are repeating claims that individual councillors are driving this issue, although no names are named.

Warren Row comes under Hurley Parish Council, who don’t publish any parish councillors’ names & addresses.  In general, parishes and parish councillors are regarded by principal authorities (boroughs and counties) as a barely tolerated pretty low form of life. The ward councillors (for Hurley and Walthams)  don’t live in warren Row, nor does anyone else, although, sign of our times I guess, several are c/o the Town Hall.

all that said, I find the Council’s  level of aggression towards Velolife - the injunction in particular  - really surprising, do they do this all the time these days? What previous warnings have been ignored?  What (if any) nuisances have there been from cyclists? 

If he was operating an illegal quarry, putting caravans on a sports field, or holding a rave, this injunction would be a reasonable and necessary step. 

 

Avatar
brooksby | 4 years ago
8 likes

I feel that this is a hole that RBWM just needs to stop digging. It's deep enough, and at this rate they're just going to open a sewer...

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 4 years ago
4 likes

Must be a right bunch of snowflakes who live in the vicinity of the cafe, if they are so upset by the noise of people talking during working hours.

They need to try living in the real world (by which I mean inner city areas, to be clear).  For most of us getting anything done about noise nuisance is a daunting and long-drawn-out task, and can only really be attempted if the noise is during the night.  How on earth has the council gotten so involved in a case about mild noise during day-time?  Either someone is very well-connected, or  Windsor&Maidenhead is the land of pampered snowflakes.

 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 4 years ago
1 like
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Must be a right bunch of snowflakes who live in the vicinity of the cafe, if they are so upset by the noise of people talking during working hours.

They need to try living in the real world (by which I mean inner city areas, to be clear).  For most of us getting anything done about noise nuisance is a daunting and long-drawn-out task, and can only really be attempted if the noise is during the night.  How on earth has the council gotten so involved in a case about mild noise during day-time?  Either someone is very well-connected, or  Windsor&Maidenhead is the land of pampered snowflakes.

 

The council became involved as the café were using the premises not in accordance with planning permission. Earlier items talked about large bins, large storage not off site as it should have been and art exhibitions (?) and then it spun off to cyclists noise (noisy from being in high spirits before an event !!).
I'm not sure you can really complain about the initial engagement, after all that's why we have planning laws

Avatar
iandusud | 4 years ago
2 likes

I think that some locals (who might just happen to be cyclists) should turn up en masse in thier cars.

Avatar
Hirsute | 4 years ago
4 likes

They withdrew the letters to the clubs - wow. Previous news items had comments from legal people saying there was no basis at all for the letters and they should not have been issued.

It's almost as though rbwm have done the clubs a favour.

Avatar
Pilot Pete | 4 years ago
9 likes

My letter just sent to all the elected councillors...

 

Dear Councillors

Having made a complete hash of dealing with the so called ‘issue’ at Velolife cafe I was pleased to be informed and indeed to read in the press that your leader had visited the cafe, spoken with the owner and also engaged with British Cycling and Cycling UK to find a resolution.

This culminated in the rash, questionable and highly inflammatory, if not bullying letters sent to cycling clubs threatening legal action being withdrawn. The ONLY sensible move available considering the ridiculous and highly questionable legal position stated in the letters.

So, all good. Even the two national bodies put out press releases, jointly with your council apparently, stating that the sensible resolution had been achieved, i.e.  that a local small business would be supported and cyclists would not be hounded and harassed and threatened with legal action should they visit said cafe. It stated that it was ‘not the council’s  intention to stop people enjoying the facilities there.’

However, it transpires that you have managed to put your other foot straight in the doo dah that you had just managed to extract your first foot from! How so? By simultaneously telling Mr Goodwin, the cafe owner that if cycling clubs visit, or gather, or meet at his cafe you could potentially prosecute him!

Have you gone completely mad? Being made aware of the reckless bullying tactics of your council officer who sent the initial letters it appeared that the elected members were on the back foot hastily beating a retreat and the leader even taking the opportunity for a photo shoot last weekend showing his great support for the cafe and effusing platitudes Trump style.

It appears that that was not the only “Trumpism” though as the council has gone ‘full Trump’ in saying one thing and simultaneously contacting the cafe owner and issuing the same threat of prosecution, this time to the cafe owner himself (perhaps it was my pointing out that they couldn’t prosecute cyclists using planning law as the cyclists had no ‘interest’ in the cafe).

So, cyclists are free to visit and support this cafe, but IF they do so as a club, the owner will be prosecuted! So how do they ‘enjoy the facilities of the cafe’ knowing that if they do it will potentially be shut down?

Your council was the laughing stock of the cycling community before due to its incompetent, laughable (well it would be if it wasn’t so serious a threat by supposedly competent councillors) and now it has managed to sink even lower in our esteem. Do you not think it is about time you took your leader to task over this ridiculous situation? It is starting to look farcical.

Answer me this.

1. Will you issue similar threats of prosecution against parents of children who play a bit too loudly in the street? If not, why not?

2. Will you issue similar threats of prosecution against ANYONE who congregates ANYWHERE in your borough who happens to talk too loudly (in someone’s opinion)? If not, why not?

3. Just exactly how many complaints regarding noise levels at the site has the council received since the business started trading? And from how many different residents? And at exactly what times of day? And on how many occasions?

You still just don’t seem to get it that you are bullying. It was cycling clubs and now it is the business owner. How is he supposed to stop people meeting at his cafe? Is he supposed to employ a bouncer on the door to turn away anyone who turns up alongside someone else? What if he puts a sign up saying ‘no meeting, congregating or talking loudly outside these premises’? Surely that would be him doing all that was reasonably possible to comply with your ridiculous order? 

I still can’t help but feel that proportional balance has gone completely out the window with regards this cafe, which is only open DURING THE DAY. People can’t complain about people talking during the day, and a council certainly can’t be taking legal enforcement action against anyone with regards this, it is completely unjust.

So, do yourselves a favour and for God’s sake stop trying to ‘play’ the various parties involved. Do you really think that national governing bodies will simply roll over and go away when you try to hoodwink them by telling them cyclists are free to visit the cafe once more without threat of legal action? And not tell them that you would prosecute the cafe owner instead? 

You are coming across as amateur not only in your conduct but also in your management and communication style. Your council deserves all the flak it is getting, and more besides. Get a grip.

Yours sincerely

Peter Smith
 

Avatar
cdamian | 4 years ago
7 likes

Kafka would be proud.

Avatar
burtthebike | 4 years ago
14 likes

So the council totally supports the business, they just want to prevent their customers from using it.

Just when you think you've seen the ultimate in absurdity from Trump and his apprentice, RBWM council shows them to be amateurs.  Is there some kind of award for this level of stupidity?

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
4 likes

It seemed to be getting all so sensible yesterday.

Luckily the involvement of both CUK and BC should help.

Avatar
StuInNorway | 4 years ago
8 likes

So, if a group of hairy bikers with illegally innefective silencers on their Harleys (for a random example) started stopping at a local McDs on their weekly group rides, would the council then take action agains a burger chain ?
How about if a minibus load of cyclists with their bikes in a trailer all stopped in at the cafe on their way to a ride, would that be a breach of terms ?  I have NEVER heard on an injuction where the actions of a 3rd party could be taken as a breach of someone else's agreement. Can any business legally be held responsible for how their customers arrive at the site ? 
How can they agree to opening a cycling cafe and workshop then say "Oh, but cyclists are not allowed in if they arrive in groups of more than 2 or 3 . . " (And how many cyclists have to be together to be defined as a "group ride" ? 

Latest Comments