A pub owner from Harrogate who had earlier criticised the controversial cycle lane and blocked it by placing ad-boards and barriers, has been asked by the council to clear everything to make way for pedestrians and cyclists, but feels that these demands are “unreasonable” and he’s “being punished”.
The shared space in Otley Road, Harrogate has been a part of much debate with complaints focusing on the potential dangers for walkers and the narrowness of the path in certain areas ever since North Yorkshire County Council secured funding for it in 2017.
Charlie Tinker, the owner of pub Charlie’s place featured on road.cc last year when he labelled it a “disaster waiting to happen”, and then… went ahead and blocked half of it by placing ad-laden (Heineken, for anyone wondering) barriers.
Now, the council has issued a letter to Mr Tinker asking him to “remove all furniture, heaters and A-boards” as “the full width of the footway is required” for the shared footway/cycleway.
However, Mr Tinker, who has owned Charlie’s Place for 19 years, said he feels he is “being punished” by the council’s “unreasonable” demands. He told The Stray Ferret: “It’s not easy for publicans – we’re still trying to recover from the covid lockdowns. The last thing we need is the council making things even more difficult for us.
“With the warmer weather coming, this is going to cost me income. I feel like I’m being punished.
“What the council is demanding is unreasonable. Just down the road, there’s a council bench and a council bin, both closer to the kerb than anything I’ve put out. It’s one rule for them and another rule for the rest of us.”
Mr Tinker said he accepted there needs to be a cycle path, but does not believe it should require the whole pavement. He said: “The section of dedicated cycle path that they’ve purpose-built just up the road is 5ft 2in (159cm) across, but the council wants the full 11ft 9in (358cm) outside my pub.
“Even if you take into account extra space for, say, a double buggy alongside the cycle path, I should still have enough space for a couple of small tables and some chairs. There should be give and take.”
However, North Yorkshire Council said that there was no formal street café licence or pavement licence in place, and said there was not enough width to accommodate pedestrians, tables and chairs, adding “this was the case before the Otley Road cycleway was introduced”.
> Council scraps £500,000 Harrogate cycle lane expansions… even though majority support plans
Melisa Burnham, North Yorkshire Council’s highways area manager, said: “Independent businesses are at the heart of our communities, and we do everything we can to support them. We recognise the importance of outdoor space for the hospitality sector, particularly in recent years when Covid-19 restricted indoor dining.
“In Harrogate and Knaresborough alone, we have around 16 approved street café licences and have worked with 65 businesses since the pandemic to support and introduce pavement licences alongside the former borough council.
“In all cases, the safety of those using the pavements and roads should take priority. Unfortunately, there are pavements which aren’t wide enough to facilitate outdoor seating, and we will always work with these businesses to find possible solutions.”
Business owner who protested that the Otley Road Cycle Path would lead to a collision between cyclists and pedestrians, exacerbates the problem by blocking off half of the path with barriers ?♂️https://t.co/2PVPggJ8F8 pic.twitter.com/AqIA5O3ozr
— Harrogate Cycle Action (@cycle_harrogate) March 13, 2022
In February, road.cc reported North Yorkshire Council’s plans to scrap the proposed £500,000 expansion of Otley Road cycle lane despite majority of the people supporting it.
However, Otley Road had been a constant target of disaprovals by almost every road user and resident in the area in the past. In October last year, the Council proposed one of the options in its consultation as an unsegregated cycle lane against the flow of traffic, which the HDCA referred to as ‘nonsense’ and a ‘murder strip’.
The poorly thought-out plans and the backlash against measures to promote cycling are apparent in the city despite there being some criticisms that the Council was spending the majority of its cycle route money in Harrogate.
Many local cyclists have also agreed with criticisms of the path, including its narrowness and the potential dangers of sharing with pedestrians, along with drivers who’ve claimed this would increase congestion on the busy road. However, as is evident from the pictures, there’s a two-lane two-way still available for motor traffic even with cars parked on the road.
Last year, the Harrogate Residents Association wrote to North Yorkshire County Council to argue that the new route is “very dangerous and there could be an accident”, with Mr Tinker also stating that there was a serious danger that one of his customers could be injured by a speeding cyclist.
“Cyclists coming down this hill can really pick up speed, and having the cycle lane so close to our front door is dangerous. There’s no buffer for the customer – they’re walking straight into it,” he said. “Someone could easily come out of our pub straight into the path of a speeding cyclist – it’s only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.”
Mr Tinker argued that a small amount of space could, and should, be reserved in front of his premises for customers – just as it has been, albeit unofficially, for the the last two decades.
40 thoughts on “Pub owner who blocked cycle lane says he’s “being punished” after council asks to remove all barriers”
I wonder if Mr Tinker would
I wonder if Mr Tinker would have a simillar issue if, say, the local authority took out some of the shared used space in front of his establishment for a couple of extra parking spaces?
Everything about that place
Everything about that place oozes class – tacky hoardings, tacky name and a stickered up Chrysler. Charlie’s done good.
Looks like he’s already got
Looks like he’s already got an outside drinking area on the first floor so no practical need for use of the outside frontage except to deny access for passing riders.
Mr Tinker needn’t worry.
Mr Tinker needn’t worry. Patrons will be protected by the smoke/vape haze and their beer armour.
If he thinks that being asked
If he thinks that being asked to remove obstructions from the public highway is some sort of punishment, he’s really going to get a shock if someone injures themselves getting tangled up in any of those same obstructions.
I think his real issue is he
I think his real issue is he needs planning permission to put signs outside his pub like that, and a license to extend seating areas outside too, neither of which it appears he has got.
Now fair enough during covid restrictions, councils werent enforcing those rules to support local businesses and the outside rules, that enabled situations like this to develop.
But without that permission, the introduction of the cycle lane/shared path, now effectively blocks him from ever being able to gain that permission.
The Council say there was,
The Council say there was, and is not, enough space for tables and that’s why he has never had permission, cycle lane or not.
That looks like an utterly
That looks like an utterly useless cycle lane: shared use and frontages and doors literally adjoining.
lesterama wrote:
It’s not a cycle lane but a shared pavement, by no means ideal I agree but made even worse by the landlord funnelling pedestrians and cyclists into an even smaller shared space with his furniture.
On the section in the picture
On the section in the picture, the council should have removed the parking and provided a separate cycle track.
Alternatively offer the
Alternatively offer the landlord the option to rent the car parking spaces and install barriers around them to place tables there. Either way placing tables on a footway or cycle route with no rental agreement in place to compensate for their use should not be considered.
Shared use is a poor option anyway, but if traffic levels on it are low enough it can be a stepping stone with better facilities following if enough use is there.
not sure about in Yorkshire,
not sure about in Yorkshire, but up here it would be seen as increasing his floorspace and thus increasing the amount payable under business rates.
or should be …
Yes! If councils want change
Yes! If councils want change – rather than just feeding money to construction firms and doing some greenwashing – they need to do the hardest thing. Not just to say “proper provision for cycling” or even “reducing parking / road space” (politically dangerous). Actually telling people that priorities have changed and motorists will lose some convenience *for* cycling provision.
”Mr Tinker also stating that
”Mr Tinker also stating that there was a serious danger that one of his customers could be injured by a speeding cyclist.” I’m surprised you let this go unchallenged. Firstly there is no such thing as a ‘speeding’ cyclist here as there is no speed limit on that shared path. Any speed would be legal and no speed has been deemed unsafe by any legal authority. Secondly the customer walking out of the pub would be at fault if there was an accident with a cyclist. They would be entering the shared path and crossing a cyclist’s path creating the conflict. They should stop and check it is safe to proceed before walking onto the path from the pub premises. He makes out his customers would be the victims and the cyclists the guilty party when in actual fact his customers would be culpable in any and all injuries they sustained as well as any possible serious injuries to cyclists – which he doesn’t mention or care about.
Looks like the easiest
Looks like the easiest solution would be to take away the on-street parking and turn that space into a cycle lane. There must be reasons why this wasn’t done, I guess, but car parking should be lowest down the list of priorities for valuable street space.
100%.
100%.
The reason is wasn’t done is that North Yorkshire Council has neither the expertise nor the commitment needed to put in good quality cycle infrastructure.
Japan does not allow on
Japan does not allow on street parking and you can’t own a car if you’ve nowhere to put it.
Mind you, they also have an excellent public transport system. Try using Google Maps for a few journeys and compare travel times. For example, it’s about 4 times as long to use a car to get to a point in Kyoto from a point in Tokyo, 12 hours for a 500km journey as opposed to 3 hours by public transport (choosing a point not next to a convenient mainline station just to be fair).
Judging by the photo that
Judging by the photo that looks like a bad section of infrastructure. The road looks a better option.
Reading this from Australia,
Reading this from Australia, it seems unbelievable that every day on Road.cc there’s another article about some tin pot little council or shire in the UK putting in “infrastructure” without reference to any unified standard. We have: Austroads AP-G88-17 (give it a google). Considering we appropriated our entire system of government from you chaps, you may wish to borrow this from us in return.
Calc wrote:
The UK has national guidance, but it’s not exactly legally binding (AFAIK) and many councils go off piste and do what causes the least inconvenience to motorists…
Also not 100% sure, I know
Also not 100% sure, I know that Active Travel England have written that bids for new active travel cash will be expected to implement relevant standards (e.g. LTN 1/20 etc.)
Does anyone know how “motivational” this is? First – there isn’t much of that cash now.
Second – what exactly is the feedback mechanism to stop money granted for this being “incidentally” used to fix the roads for cars – with maybe a painted cycle lane “built” too? Does anyone go and check what’s been done? If they do how do they assess it? What if any comeback if it’s not up to snuff? (I’m guessing “little to none” with the “big stick” being “we won’t give you more to waste – for a bit anyway”).
LTN1/20 is only guidance
LTN1/20 is only guidance though, its not a binding set of design rules, plus its got plenty of wiggle room on its recommendations around shared paths and minimum widths, that its totally possible for a council to design some of the worst kind of cycle infra and still claim to be LTN1/20 compliant, because it never says dont do it this way.
as for Active travel England, well Im not sure their funding was the bit that was curtailed, but whats been the comeback on the tranche 1,2 or even 3 stuff that went before, who has accounted for all that money that presumably has now been spent and checked what got delivered ?
Awavey wrote:
I think LTN 1/20 is a serious effort and there’s much which *is* good there (Ranty Highwayman thinks so at least). It does bother me that there are “get outs” at every level though. The whole impression is that this isn’t something we take seriously. Or it’s “best practice – if you like”. Not much differently from the usual “have a go if you want; it’s only for cycling, not important safety-critical stuff like transport infra”.
Not sure what part of Aus you
Not sure what part of Aus you’re in, but here in Melbourne its quite common for local councils to build arbitrary and near-useless or dangerous bits of “infrastructure” where it suits them. I can find “bike paths” narrower than some handlebars, blind corners, unmarked grey power poles in the middle of paths, arbitrarily ending paths 2m from the road they supposedly join, numerous “cyclist dismount” signs on “cycling infrastructure”, the list goes on. The “shared footway” past the Notting hill hotel in NH has the same clearance as this pub & path, yet is near brand new “infrastructure”. God help you when the local stride out the door after an afternoon session in the front bar
Classic case of a shared use
Classic case of a shared use path being made, without any thought for the safety of pedestrians or cyclists, for the convenience of king car.
Drunk customers will be staggering out into the path of cyclists and the cyclist will likely come off worse.
It might be an unpopular opinion but I do think what the pub owner is doing is making the path safer; however it would be easier to make this case for them if they weren’t being such a tit about it.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Possible incidental benefit. I could be completely wrong – perhaps they’ve even originally gone into the licenced trade with the motivation of improving transport safety and public safety in general? However I’m betting that like every other business that does this they put the signs there for advertising / to grab a bit of extra (free, public) space they can use for their patrons.
Mr Tinker wrote:
Remind me again – what has he given?
As an insightful business
As an insightful business owner Mr Charlie Tinker still has the opportunity to welcome cyclists and active travelers generally to his customer focused establishment and grow it back above pandemic trade levels.
Not worth the risk of only welcoming motorists who have worse health so less likely to be long term customers
I do agree he shouldn’t block
I do agree he shouldn’t block this shared pathway, but perhaps we should educate cyclists from a young age to cycle safely on the road.
An updated cycling proficiency course would go a long way to help.
The councils won’t help us, the drivers won’t help us, so we have to help ourselves.
BE SAFE OUT THERE
It’s ok young kids being able
It’s ok young kids being able to cycle safely on roads but it doesn’t make other road users use the roads more safely. I’ve just started taking my eldest on the road and found it shocking how so many motorists don’t defer from their default setting of just being on auto pilot, especially at pinch points in the road, both oncoming and overtaking motorists not giving nowhere near enough room or altering their speeds in anyway to make it safer for my child.
drsaxby wrote:
we should educate the ones who create the danger on the road – that’s not the cyclists.
An updated driving test would go a long way to help.
drsaxby wrote:
The Bike Ability courses over several levels are still available and my 10yo completed his a couple of months ago. Local cycle clubs welcome junior members and understand that they are the future.
drsaxby wrote:
Well… cycling proficiency stuff is good as far as it goes. At least it gives more kids a chance to be on a bike.
You say this “would go a long way to help”? Why do you think that? Given most kids don’t even cycle to school (2% apparently in 2021 – and I’m surprised it’s that high)? It’s not just parents – understandably – not letting them. Some schools strongly discourage this too (see previous road.cc stories).
Second – for the few kids who do actually cycle on the roads what’s the evidence that cycling proficiency actually delivers fewer crashes and KSIs? Learning the rules of the road / some cycling basics is a very good idea – I’m just questioning if anyone knows how much “safety” is within the power of children given ubiquitous human driving?
Question – as part of “cycling proficiency” are the kids taken out on the local roads for a “cycling test”? If not, why not?
By the time they’re of an age where people wouldn’t sue the school for doing that the kids will have understood that cycling is not how to get around. Adults drive, you see. That makes sense because most people simply don’t feel safe cycling with lots of cars and / or with much faster moving / larger vehicles.
It’s about having the space where this feels like a safe activity. Kids are more social than adults – and cycling conditions in the UK actively discourage social cycling (except some words in the Highway Code many don’t ever read). People won’t cycle about if it doesn’t seem convenient for getting about. Finally – where are the role models – local ones, not just a couple of slebs?
As an aside – if we were serious about doing this something like traffic gardens for younger kids would be a start. Also we probably need an app. Luckily we can just translate this one.
My personal experience. 40
My personal experience. 40 years as a motorcyclist and driver. I have several advanced driver courses and have in the past worked as a part time m’cycle instructor. I run dashcams on my cars and motorcycle. In the last 10 years I have nothing, no close calls, no life threatening, heart in the mouth moments. Some interesting driving from other road users but nothing I have felt compelled to report. On the bicycle, however, I sometimes feel like a coconut at the fair. I make on average 1 or 2 submissions a year to my local Road Traffic Unit on the most egregious bad driving. On the bicycle I am so much more vulnerable to poor and aggressive driving by others. I have neither the speed, acceleration or “road presence” to do much about creating and maintaining a safe space around me. Hi viz and a helmet are scant armour in those circumstances. I do agree with you about the validity of training for all road users but anything that detracts from the focus on placing responsibility firmly on the group of road users who actually cause the damage is plain wrong headed.
If you want to “help ourselves” then campaign for solving the root causes. Poor infrastructure and poor driving standards.
You can fuck off and stick
You can fuck off and stick your “educate cyclists” trolling bullshit up your ignorant arse.
[I’m running low on patience today, particularly with fuckwits and ignorant jerks]
Well that escalated quickly.
Well that escalated quickly.
We’re getting to the point
We’re getting to the point where it’s going to be necessary to pass a cycling proficiency test before being allowed to post on road.cc
mark1a wrote:
I might have been a smidgin more circumspect if I had seen that post yesterday but I can’t promise.
I am really not a fan of
I am really not a fan of shared use paths – they put potentially fast moving wheeled vehicles in the same place as slow moving pedestrians, often with poor sightlines and normally lots of driveways and side roads to cross. Looking at Google Earth from before this shared use path was put in, there’s one on the other side of the road, sensibly away from front doors, but crossing many driveways.
I’m intrigued though by the odd-looking flag on the pub in Google Earth https://goo.gl/maps/vHHkTpwhhB8PTjc8A . It looks like the flag here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_blue_line#Appearances_and_controversy (but I’m sure it’s a misunderstanding)
Couldn’t he put some tables
Couldn’t he put some tables in the road and move his car somewhere else?