Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Velolife: Chris Boardman slams "shameful waste of money" as cycling cafe planning dispute heads to court with owner potentially facing jail

British Cycling's lawyers and Martin Porter QC are representing business fighting council's application for an injunction...

British Cycling’s lawyers, Leigh Day, and the governing body’s policy advisor, Chris Boardman, have thrown their weight behind Velolife, the Berkshire cycling cafe whose owner Lee Goodwin could potentially face jail due to a planning dispute preventing cyclists from meeting there.

Boardman today described Windsor & Maidenhead Borough Council’s efforts to stop cyclists from meeting there as “a shameful waste of scarce public money.”

He said: "I personally visited Velolife café and I didn't see a nuisance, just a fantastic local business serving the community in a wholly desirable way.

"The café stop is integral part of British cycling culture, serving clubs, solo riders and families up and down the country, making a valuable contribution to the local economy.

"That the council are actively trying to ban something that is good for everyone seems a shameful waste of scarce public money, to prevent activity they should be strongly encouraging. I urge the council to withdraw the injunction immediately in the interests of all involved.”

The background

In October 2017, after Mr Goodwin took over premises formerly occupied as a public house in Warren Row, near Henley-on-Thames, Windsor & Maidenhead Borough Council issued an enforcement notice following a complaint from a neighbour.

The enforcement notice sought to prevent the premises being used as a café, a bicycle workshop, retail outlet and a meeting place. Mr Goodwin appealed, and a in October 2018 a planning inspector ruled that while it was lawful for the café to operate as a cycling café with associated workshop, it could not be used as a “cyclists’ meet.”

In July, the council sought an injunction against Mr Goodwin as well as local cycling clubs, insisting that the café was being used for cyclists to meet up before, during or after rides, in breach of the enforcement notice.

It has since retracted the letters to cycling clubs, but the enforcement notice against Mr Goodwin, who has urged cyclists not to use the café to meet up, remains in force, with a court due to decide whether to issue an injunction on 19 November.

Besides Leigh Day, Mr Goodwin is also represented by Martin Porter QC and barrister Tom Morris, as well as being supported by both British Cycling and Cycling UK, with both organisations having previously met with him and the council to try and find a solution.

James Beagent, who is acting for him at Leigh Day, said: “Our client has so far attended three meetings with the Council and has bent over backwards in attempting to work with them to mitigate the alleged harm to the neighbouring property.   

“These efforts include actively discouraging cyclists from meeting at or near the café prior to departing on an organised ride, publicising the fact that this is not permitted on social media, demarking the neighbours’ access route through the café car-park, putting up ‘no bicycles beyond this point’ signs and physically moving cycle racks.

“Despite these efforts the council seem intent upon pursuing the injunction both against Mr Goodwin and against cyclists in general.”

Next month's court case

Last Friday, the law firm sent a letter on Mr Goodwin’s behalf to the council in which it said it “set out the fair and sensible definition of a ‘cyclists’ meet’ and the inappropriateness of pursuing an injunction in these circumstances.”

Mr Beagent explained: “It is clear that the enforcement notice as approved by the planning inspector prohibits only the organised meeting of cyclists at the café prior to departing for a ride.   The Council’s attempts to widen the definition are ill-founded and wholly inappropriate where taking the draconian step of seeking an injunction.

“It is inappropriate for an injunction to be made against Mr Goodwin where he is doing everything reasonably within his power to prevent ‘Cyclists’ Meets’ taking place at Velolife and it is truly chilling that Mr Goodwin faces imprisonment if third parties, outside of his control, were to meet at the café prior to departing on a ride.”

He added: “We will be inviting the Council to discontinue the application to prevent further legal costs being wasted.  If the Council decline, then we will be vigorously defending Mr Goodwin at the injunction claim on 19 November.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

33 comments

Avatar
rtw | 4 years ago
2 likes

I can only explain what was my conjecture. Understanding what I wrote is up to you.

I am incredulous as to the way this planning dispute appears to be being handled.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to rtw | 4 years ago
1 like

rtw wrote:

I can only explain what was my conjecture. Understanding what I wrote is up to you.

FWIW I can't understand where Fluffy got their interpretation of what you wrote.

Avatar
Vlad the Impailer | 4 years ago
0 likes

Having looked on the Google map photo above - I can see the problem here.

The house is indeed in the rear garden of the old pub and its driveway splits the site in two.

Its location close to the carpark area will cause an issue with noise and disturbance from a large gathering.

That said - he must have been made aware of what was happening when the old pub was brought and the planning application for change of use was listed.

I think this is just a case of building a driveway fenced off that will split the Velo Cafe in two.

The building and then  the car park with seating and bike racks.

Avatar
Kendalred | 4 years ago
3 likes

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5203727,-0.8326848,3a,54y,64.82h,86.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-k-eAQqUjm10bePWcZxO2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Not sure if the above link will work, but if it does...

You can see that the driveway of the nimby in question is to the extreme right of the car park, and for the owner to drive in and out of his property he/she would have to pass extremely close to the door of the cafe, if we presume they take the shortest route to the road. One might also guess that this was also the case when the premises was a pub. Is it me, or is/was this an accident waiting to happen, especially when it was a pub - 'cause, y'know, drunk people tend not to be the most cautious people?

In any case, the fact it has changed from being a pub to a cycling cafe doesn't negate the issues around the location of the driveway - surely it's a massive design flaw? Even if the house owner turns right into the car park and out of the other exit, there is still that issue of driving very close to the entrance to the pub/cafe. Also, you can see the hatch to the beer cellar quite clearly. I have worked in pubs and know that deliveries of new barrells can take a while to unload, and this would block the driveway completely.

Couldn't that area (directly outside the entrance from the car park to the cafe) just be declared a 'no loitering zone'? There is plenty of space in the rest of the car park, from the bike racks/shelter onwards. This way the house owner can have unimpeded access to their driveway, visitors to the cafe know to leave this area clear, everyones a winner.

In the end I think this is all down to the fact that the building of the house behind the cafe/pub was given planning permission with no apparent though to how vehicles would access it safely. Planning permission granted by RBWM by any chance?

Edit: I don't thinnk the link works. Google maps 'Velolife Warren Row' and go to street view.

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
0 likes

Or being forced outside to smoke.

Avatar
vonhelmet | 4 years ago
3 likes

Never in my seven years of cycling have I seen a cyclist stood in a car park drinking their coffee.

Avatar
rtw replied to vonhelmet | 4 years ago
2 likes

vonhelmet wrote:

Never in my seven years of cycling have I seen a cyclist stood in a car park drinking their coffee.

I can only assume you haven’t been to Velolife on a sunny day then when they are very busy. 

Avatar
rtw | 4 years ago
0 likes

The words ‘venture’ and ‘imagine’ made clear it was speculation.

I did not write that the only way to get from one’s front door was to drive. An obstructed right of way is just that. An obstruction for a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist. All equal in my eyes.

This is a planning dispute. It may be (speculation) that this land is allowed to be used as a car park only for the adjacent building. Parking other things there, or people standing in it to have a coffee / sitting in a shelter may be outside of the restrictions on the land.

In answer to Secret_squirrel, a nuisance is a nuisance. If it were cars creating that nuisance I’m sure there would be a complaint made. That complaint may not be upheld if the land was being used in line with the planning restrictions upon it.

I am speculating. I hope this business sorts this out and continues. I have enjoyed the odd cake there in the past and hope to in the future.

Avatar
Philh68 replied to rtw | 4 years ago
3 likes

rtw wrote:

The words ‘venture’ and ‘imagine’ made clear it was speculation. This is a planning dispute. It may be (speculation) that this land is allowed to be used as a car park only for the adjacent building. Parking other things there, or people standing in it to have a coffee / sitting in a shelter may be outside of the restrictions on the land.

it is well beyond the scope of planning laws. It is making the cafe liable for the activities of others outside of any reasonable requirement, and what it does require is an infringement of the rights of peaceful assembly and rights of association. There is no plausible defence of potentially incarcerating a cafe owner because cyclists exercise their legitimate right to arrange to meet up for a ride there.

Avatar
rtw replied to Philh68 | 4 years ago
2 likes

Philh68 wrote:

rtw wrote:

The words ‘venture’ and ‘imagine’ made clear it was speculation. This is a planning dispute. It may be (speculation) that this land is allowed to be used as a car park only for the adjacent building. Parking other things there, or people standing in it to have a coffee / sitting in a shelter may be outside of the restrictions on the land.

it is well beyond the scope of planning laws. It is making the cafe liable for the activities of others outside of any reasonable requirement, and what it does require is an infringement of the rights of peaceful assembly and rights of association. There is no plausible defence of potentially incarcerating a cafe owner because cyclists exercise their legitimate right to arrange to meet up for a ride there.

 

Agree totally. It originates from a planning dispute, but is now way beyond the scope of planning. 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to rtw | 4 years ago
5 likes
rtw wrote:

The words ‘venture’ and ‘imagine’ made clear it was speculation.

I did not write that the only way to get from one’s front door was to drive. An obstructed right of way is just that. An obstruction for a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist. All equal in my eyes.

This is a planning dispute. It may be (speculation) that this land is allowed to be used as a car park only for the adjacent building. Parking other things there, or people standing in it to have a coffee / sitting in a shelter may be outside of the restrictions on the land.

In answer to Secret_squirrel, a nuisance is a nuisance. If it were cars creating that nuisance I’m sure there would be a complaint made. That complaint may not be upheld if the land was being used in line with the planning restrictions upon it.

I am speculating. I hope this business sorts this out and continues. I have enjoyed the odd cake there in the past and hope to in the future.

I am unconvinced by your non-evidence-based speculation (and wonder why you choose to speculate in a way that excuses the council - other speciations are possible that are less flattering to them).

I also disagree that 'all are equal' - a car is not equal to a human being. Access for a car is a more demanding requirement than for someone on foot. The idea that there is such an equivalence and that there's a right to drive right up to your front door is why all the streets around me have pavements with cars parked on them leaving insufficient room left for pedestrians to walk on.

I also wonder whether the issue of car access was properly considered when planning permission was given for the house.

And why, if blocking a driveway was the issue, the proposed injunction doesn't talk directly about that, rather than bizarrely talking about all cyclists being banned from meeting there, even if they arrive by means other than bicycles.

Also you _did_ imply that he only way to get from one's front door is to drive. You wrote "imagine that every time you turned into your driveway, or went to leave your house, you had a group of cyclists in the way". Well I imagined it, and then imagined myself easily walking past them (as I have had to get past the kids loitering on the stairwell of this block - I do wish they wouldn't smoke skunk there though, that stuff is appropriately named). That point only makes any sense if you assume one has to be driving. The only issue that fits your argument is car access, not any other kind.

And I still am puzzled why the council is putting such a huge amount of effort and expense into what, in your version, is merely an issue for one house. I would contrast it with how another Tory-run royal borough reacted to residents of a tower block concerned about the rather more serious issue of fire safety. I don't have any investment in Velolife, but I do have a general distrust of councils, most of all Tory-run ones.

Avatar
gazzaputt | 4 years ago
1 like

This above sounds completely plausible.

 I agree with pack mentality of cyclists. 

Avatar
rtw | 4 years ago
5 likes

I think that the nature of the complaint is hinted at in the peice, you just have to look for it.

"demarking the neighbours’ access route through the café car-park, putting up ‘no bicycles beyond this point’ signs and physically moving cycle racks"

If you look at Googlemaps, you will see that behind the old pub is a house, and the access to that house is straight across the car park.  I would even venture that the house has been built in what was the garden of that pub.

Now, in order for that to happen, either the pub sold the garden, or the owner of the pub at one point built the house before selling or renting out the pub.  They will have granted themselves access across the car park.

A car park for a pub is actually pretty different in use to a gathering of cyclists.  As a cyclist myself, I often avoid groups of cyclists, as groups engage in group think.  You only have to see it when someone gets a puncture on a lane, and 5 or 6 cyclists stop blocking the roadway while the rider fixes their bike.  Riders in the road are often very reluctant to move out of the way of passing vehicles.  Not out of mallice, but out of a lack of awareness.

Now imagine that every time you turned into your driveway, or went to leave your house, you had a group of cyclists in the way, unaware of your right to pass through (with your car, or with your horse, or whatever).  Imagine that in very busy periods, when all the bike racks are full, that you turn into your drive and there are bicycles lying on the ground in your way with the owners elsewhere.  That would constitute a nuisence.  As would people meeting there at the weekend very early.  

Now there are ways of mitigating against this, and it sounds like some of these have been explored. However, it is also a question of how the land is used, and that is why I think planning is involved.  If it is a car park, then this is not a place for gathering, but a place for parking cars.

Like I said, I don't now the entire case, and I hope that Velolife sorts it all out with their neighbour and is allowed to continue trading.

Avatar
brooksby replied to rtw | 4 years ago
5 likes

rtw wrote:

...

Now, in order for that to happen, either the pub sold the garden, or the owner of the pub at one point built the house before selling or renting out the pub.  They will have granted themselves access across the car park.

...

The neighbour is allegedly a previous landlord of the pub, from before it became a cafe (and allegedly a close friend of the council, but we'll leave that for now).  You might have expected his legal advisors, when he set up any such arrangement, to have asked what he wanted to happen if and when the pub changed ownership or usage?

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to brooksby | 4 years ago
4 likes

brooksby wrote:

rtw wrote:

...

Now, in order for that to happen, either the pub sold the garden, or the owner of the pub at one point built the house before selling or renting out the pub.  They will have granted themselves access across the car park.

...

The neighbour is allegedly a previous landlord of the pub, from before it became a cafe (and allegedly a close friend of the council, but we'll leave that for now).  You might have expected his legal advisors, when he set up any such arrangement, to have asked what he wanted to happen if and when the pub changed ownership or usage?

I believe FoI requests showed that the noise complaint was never investigated or proven before being unpheld... Council is on seriously shakey ground here.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to rtw | 4 years ago
5 likes

rtw wrote:

I think that the nature of the complaint is hinted at in the peice, you just have to look for it.

"demarking the neighbours’ access route through the café car-park, putting up ‘no bicycles beyond this point’ signs and physically moving cycle racks"

If you look at Googlemaps, you will see that behind the old pub is a house, and the access to that house is straight across the car park.  I would even venture that the house has been built in what was the garden of that pub.

Now, in order for that to happen, either the pub sold the garden, or the owner of the pub at one point built the house before selling or renting out the pub.  They will have granted themselves access across the car park.

A car park for a pub is actually pretty different in use to a gathering of cyclists.  As a cyclist myself, I often avoid groups of cyclists, as groups engage in group think.  You only have to see it when someone gets a puncture on a lane, and 5 or 6 cyclists stop blocking the roadway while the rider fixes their bike.  Riders in the road are often very reluctant to move out of the way of passing vehicles.  Not out of mallice, but out of a lack of awareness.

Now imagine that every time you turned into your driveway, or went to leave your house, you had a group of cyclists in the way, unaware of your right to pass through (with your car, or with your horse, or whatever).  Imagine that in very busy periods, when all the bike racks are full, that you turn into your drive and there are bicycles lying on the ground in your way with the owners elsewhere.  That would constitute a nuisence.  As would people meeting there at the weekend very early.  

Now there are ways of mitigating against this, and it sounds like some of these have been explored. However, it is also a question of how the land is used, and that is why I think planning is involved.  If it is a car park, then this is not a place for gathering, but a place for parking cars.

Like I said, I don't now the entire case, and I hope that Velolife sorts it all out with their neighbour and is allowed to continue trading.

 

This seems like wild speculation, and it still doesn't entirely make sense to me.

 

Saying 'imagine...every time you went to leave your house'   implies the only way anyone can imagine leaving their house is to imagine driving right from their front door.   Personally I can easily imagine walking or even slowly cycling through such a gathering.

 

It also doesn't explain the proposed injunction banning cyclists gathering there 'by any means of transport', implying the bikes 'lying on the ground' are not the issue.

 

Furthermore saying it's a 'place for parking cars' implies that parked cars, unlike loitering cyclists, are somehow transparent to matter.

 

Finally I wonder about who thought it was a good idea to allow planning permission for a house to be built in this location, given that the pub was likely to be continued to be used as a commercial premises, creating this alleged access problem.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to rtw | 4 years ago
4 likes

rtw wrote:

If it is a car park, then this is not a place for gathering, but a place for parking cars.

Like I said, I don't now the entire case, and I hope that Velolife sorts it all out with their neighbour and is allowed to continue trading.

How is bunch of cyclists shilly shallying about across an  right of accesss any different to various cars reversing, waiting and parking?

I think you are trying to create distinctions where nothing material exists - apart from just maybe the time of day the events are happening.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Secret_squirrel | 4 years ago
1 like

Secret_squirrel wrote:

rtw wrote:

If it is a car park, then this is not a place for gathering, but a place for parking cars.

Like I said, I don't now the entire case, and I hope that Velolife sorts it all out with their neighbour and is allowed to continue trading.

How is bunch of cyclists shilly shallying about across an  right of accesss any different to various cars reversing, waiting and parking?

I think you are trying to create distinctions where nothing material exists - apart from just maybe the time of day the events are happening.

Because "cars", innit 

Avatar
nniff | 4 years ago
5 likes

Just had a rather surreal thought - to serve an injunction against the Council to prevent them holding organised meets of the councilors on the basis that they constitute a nuisance.

Avatar
Mybike | 4 years ago
6 likes

Possible jail time for a coffee shop owner because 2 or more people on bike went for a coffee. And the the people on the council still do see how stupid this is

Avatar
brooksby | 4 years ago
3 likes

I can't believe that RBWM haven't yet quietly pretended that this whole farrago never happened...

Avatar
Sriracha | 4 years ago
0 likes

It seems to me there is a difference between a café or pub where customers come and go in small groups independently, and one where there is a tidal flow of large groups arriving or departing more or less as one, animated by a common purpose.

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to Sriracha | 4 years ago
5 likes

Sriracha wrote:

It seems to me there is a difference between a café or pub where customers come and go in small groups independently, and one where there is a tidal flow of large groups arriving or departing more or less as one, animated by a common purpose.

I can only assume you have never been anywhere near a pub at closing time ...

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Jetmans Dad | 4 years ago
0 likes
Jetmans Dad wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

It seems to me there is a difference between a café or pub where customers come and go in small groups independently, and one where there is a tidal flow of large groups arriving or departing more or less as one, animated by a common purpose.

I can only assume you have never been anywhere near a pub at closing time ...

I'll assume that you have, in which case you will understand the point being made.

Avatar
CyclingInBeastMode | 4 years ago
5 likes

I hope the council are taken to the cleaners and that their actions are proven to be unlawful, i.e. acting criminally. It would send a huge message. And if it fails then what?

The legal representation seems to be saying we're going on technicalities (because of ill/non specific definition), isn't this a bit sketchy? If they were to geta FOI request regarding similar scenarios and also ones were complaints have been made but no action taken. Also to find out if the complainant has 'connections' with the LA and if there is any future planning for the site that might get ticked off, you know, for residential development and shizzle. 

Avatar
Pilot Pete | 4 years ago
3 likes

Maybe a freedom of information application could reveal the full truth to this story and a bit of background regarding the complainant and the history of  the anti-social behaviour alleged.

PP

Avatar
Pushing50 replied to Pilot Pete | 4 years ago
0 likes

Pilot Pete wrote:

Maybe a freedom of information application could reveal the full truth to this story and a bit of background regarding the complainant and the history of  the anti-social behaviour alleged.

PP

I once passed wind in the car park  in my lycra shorts. A bit anti social I know, but I did excuse myself afterwards (maybe a bit too loudly). They don't take kindly to farting in the region.

Avatar
burtthebike | 4 years ago
6 likes

There's obviously still a lot we aren't being told about this alleged nuisance, which seemed to consist of a cyclist gobbing and possibly talking loudly.  If I lived there, my councillor would be dreading yet another call from me demanding to know when they were going to stop wasting my money and telling them to stop.  Surely all the local cyclists who  use the cafe are bombarding their councillors 24/7 with emails and demands for sense?

Avatar
vonhelmet | 4 years ago
16 likes

I refuse to believe a pub could possibly he less disruptive than a cycling cafe.

Avatar
Vlad the Impailer | 4 years ago
6 likes

Why dont we all do a cycle around the block and gather outside the Windsor & Maidenhead Borough Council offices and end there for a coffe and cake.

Show them how many of the cycling world actually think that they are STUPID.

 

If the owner loses this..... then we should all gather outside the adjoining premises to the Cafe.

Pages

Latest Comments