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

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 

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 ...

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.

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.