- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Velolife (via Facebook)Council hits back in Velolife cycle cafe row – cyclists CAN use cafe insists statement… they just can’t “meet” there or congregate outside
A council insists that it is not stopping cyclists from using a cycling café in Berkshire – despite having obtained an injunction that in effect does exactly that.
On Saturday, we reported how the owner of the Velolife cycling café in Warren Row, Berkshire, had received an enforcement notice preventing cyclists from meeting there.
> Council says cyclists can’t meet at Berkshire cycling café
Several cycling clubs based nearby the café, which lies three and a half miles south west of the Berkshire town of Henley-on-Thames, also received injunction notices telling them they could not visit the café at any point during an organised ride.
The issuance of the enforcement notices follows a planning dispute dating back to 2017, the year after Lee Goodwin took over the premises that formerly operated as a pub called The Snooty Fox which had been closed for 18 months and struggling for a couple of years before that.
In response to our story, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which obtained the injunction, insisted that cyclists could still use the café, but “cyclists’ meets” were not allowed.
A spokeswoman for the council told road.cc: “The planning inspector has made it clear that groups of cyclists meeting outside Velolife café cause a nuisance to nearby residents.
“The appeal decision has concluded that the lawful use of the site is as a café with cycle repair. In this decision the planning inspector upheld and varied the enforcement notice and deemed that cyclist meets should not take place at the café but that cyclists are still welcome to use the café facilities but must not congregate outside.”
That appears to introduce an ambiguity to the interpretation of an earlier planning decision, as to whether or not cyclists are allowed to meet there; does a group of three or four friends, for example, who arrange to meet there or stop on a ride, constitute a “cyclists meet”?
In 2017, following a complaint from a nearby resident, Goodwin had received an enforcement notice requiring him to cease using the premises as a café, meeting place, cycle repair facility and for retail use.
He appealed that decision, and was permitted to carry on using them as a café with a bike workshop, but not for retail.
The inspector who made the appeal decision also changed the words “meeting place” to “cyclists’ meet,”.reasoning that the term“meeting place” was wide in its meaning and could encompass a range of purposes, “whereas the allegation is intended to target the use of the land as a place where cyclists meet prior to departing on organised rides and events.”
She added that if planning permission were given for use as a “cyclist’s meet,” events could be held more frequently, “and this element could intensify.”
The planning inspector also restricted Velolife’s opening hours, so it could only trade between 9am and 7pm.
On Saturday, Goodwin told road.cc: “We were happy with the decision because we could still have cyclists come through and use us as a cycling stop. All we were not to do was organise club rides that started at Velolife – which we don’t do.
“However, the council decided to take the notion that a ‘cyclists’ meet’ encompassed any gathering of cyclists before, during or after a ride of any sort.”
The enforcement notice received by Goodwin last week stated: “It is the Council opinion that [cyclist meets] involves, and will include the gathering of cyclists for organised rides, whether they start, finish, or are constructed to use the land and building during such events. If, at any stage during a cyclist’s meet, the activity is engaged on the land or in the building will constitute a breach of the requirements to cease the use.”
Goodwin said he was worried that the council’s narrow interpretation of the term could result in Velolife going out of business.
He explained: “Even if the council and I are having a slight difference of opinion on what the inspectorate actually had in mind, with the council’s opinion they can prosecute me and force me to stop cyclists coming on site and basically destroy my business, where myself I have no access to that.
“I have to apparently sit and take it. When we do finally land up in court – and the earliest will be in November – I won’t have a business to defend if they stop cyclists coming on site.”
We have asked the council to clarify its position, on a number of points:
If a cyclist rides to the cafe with friends, or a cycling group or club, and use the facilities, the council appear to define that as breaking the injunction. So what is the definition of 'organised' here? And how exactly are cyclists "welcome"?
We've also pointed out that the injunction goes on to state that cycle club members cannot meet at the cafe "arriving by any means, car, van or cycle, at any time of day or night". So two friends that happen to be members of the same cycling club that independently drove to the cafe and met each other would be breaking the injunction. What specific issue is this restriction designed to address?
We have also approached national cyclists’ charity Cycling UK for a comment on the issue.
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.
Latest Comments
- ubercurmudgeon 2 min 50 sec ago
She defended Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch even as they were closing down the News of the World during the phone hacking scandal....
- IanMSpencer 39 min 58 sec ago
I don't think you need have any concern about cycling safety improving with #toxicadi Ashley Neal advocating for us on protected cycle lanes....
- andystow 43 min 41 sec ago
Court case thrown out after attorney can't find parking near courthouse. https://abovethelaw.com/2024/04/case-tossed-when-lawyer-cant-find-any-pa...
- mark1a 46 min 49 sec ago
Surely it's the sensor that is 8K, not the lens?
- Legin 47 min 48 sec ago
Does her husband know that divorce is legal in many countries?
- Nagai74 1 hour 9 min ago
No proof of this, but wouldn't you imagine that the majority of drivers have ridden pushbikes at some point in their lives, even if only as kids?
- chrisonabike 1 hour 16 min ago
Indeed... though to be fair the Dutch have some contraflow cycling in narrow streets. Although I think increasingly they would try to avoid this ...
- NPlus1Bikelights 1 hour 33 min ago
The inventor of the wall mounted triangles needs to be shamed. They only take a standard bike and damage the rims. Also the wheel is secure but the...
- Secret_squirrel 1 hour 35 min ago
The Triban 520 still seems to be available in 11x 105! guise for 899 and Microshift 749.
- Sriracha 1 hour 37 min ago
They should get it product tested by BoJo - if it sits correctly on his head it's a winner.
Add new comment
76 comments
They're getting torn to pieces on Twitter and it's been going on all through the night
As others have said, no evidence of any disruption or annoyance has yet been provided, and for such heavy handed action, the council would have to have documented, verified proof, otherwise this is blatant anti-cyclist discrimination. I would have thought their enforcement action could be challenged on lack of evidence amongst many other grounds.
Even if they have such evidence, they have to demonstrate that their response is reasonable and proportionate, which seems unlikely.
I would claim to be transvehicular and say I'm not a cyclist as I identify as a motorist.
Surely it would also be really bad press if say, a group of disabled cyclists where barred from meeting up?
And now the leader of RBWM chimes in, this is getting surreal.
https://twitter.com/MrSimonDudley/status/1159166921671139328?s=20
Sheesh, all the council do on Twitter is robotically post the exact same bit of ill-defined nonsense over-and-over-again, responding to any request for clarification or proper definitions with the same drivel.
What is it with boroughs with 'Royal' in their name? There seems to be a pattern there. I think the Royal connection may not be unrelated to the imperious refusal to acknowledge the rights of others if they clash with someone's self-interest.
Seems like this is yet another council abusing its powers.
From the posted image of the injunction it implies only one cyclist at a time is allowed on the premises no matter how they choose to arrive (including walking).
As worded the "injunction" above seems unenforceable and unreasonable, and whilst I am no lawyer, the government guidelines seem clear that the limitations RBWM have placed are probably illegal.
But to prove this would mean Velolife would have to take RBWM to court, they would probably win but I'm in the dark as to whether they could reclaim court costs when suing councils, even if they can - a possible outcome could be that the court completely revokes the planning consent and forces Velolife to go back through the submission process, which I'm would probably lead to fruther unrecoverable costs.
On the one hand this is good advertising for Velolife but they run the risk of being closed down should they allow two or more cyclists on the premises at the same time.
It'll be interesting trying to enforce that. As soon as you dismount your bike, you're no longer a cyclist, so ride to cafe, dismount outside, meet in car park (don't be tempted to mount the bike!), walk back onto road, cycle away.
But then, whoever drafted this "law" probably doesn't define a "cyclist" as someone who happens to be mounted on a bike, but a person "dressed like Bradley Wiggins" on a "professional racing bicycle worth several thousand pounds", who can simultaneously ride on the pavement, jump red lights and slow all the cars down.
Surely the council leNing so heavily on 'meeting' means riding there is fine even in a group. But dont meet another group from your club who travelled there by a different route.
a copy of the letter sent to the local clubs. If you wish to support please complain to the RBWM here: https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/forms/form/152/en/complaint_form?fbclid=IwAR2Dn....
Twitter: #savevelolife
velolife letter 1.png
Here's the link to the Planning Enforcement Document
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=29547330
"Regarding cyclists’ meets, these occur on Saturday mornings with the car park area being the place where cyclists congregate prior to departing on an organised ride. There is also some evidence of meets prior to summer evening rides. It is said that, on occasions, only a couple of cyclists have attended. On other occasions, however, there have been twenty or so cyclists. The numbers involved, together with the frequency and regularity of events, indicate that the land is used as a cyclists’ meet to a clear and discernible extent. "
You're welcome everyone!
Second letter sent to clubs- still not clear what constitutes an "Organised Cycling Meet" and how you can use the cafe but not when it is not at the start, end or stop off during a ride /"cycling meet". And how to do that without congregating outside- how would we dismount and hang the bikes up etc. And, say I drive there to do a dog walk and meet a friend, I am still in breach as I have ridden a bicycle previously so I am a "cyclist" and I'm not allowed to "meet" by travelling to VL via car...
It doesn't seem in line with council regeneration and cycling strategy plans
6.32 We will: Enhance existing recreational cycling routes / develop new routes in order to meet local demand. Work with Sustrans, neighbouring authorities and local landowners to enhance local elements of the National Cycle Network and develop / link to new NCN Routes. Work with partners in the visitor economy to promote sustainable tourism, including cycle touring.
Full details here
https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/2775/cycling_strategy_con...
#savevelolife
velolife letter 2.png
Thanks RoseRider for bringing more clarity to the situation.
The second letter says “I would like to apologise for the suggestion we might take enforcement action against your club. I can confirm that this is not our intention.”
Which seems very strange as threatening:- "The council is investigating the position with regard to criminal offences...now unlawful activity...as a named defendant...I trust this clarifies the matter"
David Sharkey does not seem to have read the first letter, which seemed to clarify the councils positon very well. The threatening tone did imply more than the mere suggestion of enforcement action, to me at least, and which appeared to be slightly more than an intention.
I visited the cafe today, and noticed that the driveway to the "For Sale" property actually was between the former pub and the car/bike park. A group of cyclists were unfortunately discussing the matter at hand, which must have been driving someone utterly crazy.
UPDATE. There has been speculation that the neighbour or neighbours who made the original complaint must have friends in high places at the RBMW council. Speculate no more. Robert Anwyl-Hughes and Maureen Hunt live next door and near the cafe. They are both RBMW councillor members. You’re welcome!!!
It seems old Bob Anwyl-Hughes (who lives next to the cafe) has been to a few parish meetings where everyone agrees that the local area plan is to encourage cycling and local jobs, (as documented, amongst other activities in the area), it's a mostly green belt area, cycling is mentioned as a factor in that numerous times..... but clearly this has nothing to do with what the council wants or what's good for the area, this whole debacle is the very definition of NIMBY (or NIMFY if we're being literal).
I think the council should take a good long hard look and the enforcement action appeal decision by her majestys planning inspectorate
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3188329&CoID=0
before threatening any legal action against velolife and cycling clubs.
They are going so far beyond the wording of the appeal decision that i would say they are in contempt of it, and action should be taken against them.
"We were not taking part in a 'cyclists' meet', m'lud - we were a flashmob of people dressed in cycling gear."
It would be a terrible shame for the NIMBYs if someone were to organise a time trial a few hundres metres away and send a stream of fast moving cyclists past at one per minute for an hour or so.
At least as it's been reported, it's not only discrimination, it's discrimination against a group which is not even clearly defined. As it explicitly says it doesn't even matter how they travel to the cafe, then 'cyclist' can only be taken to mean 'anyone who occasionally uses a bicycle'. Which makes the whole thing bonkers.
Somebody should 'meet' him there. That'll make him disappear as physics and logic break down.
The original story gave a link to an appeal and the planning inspector's adjudication so it has already had a review. It's normal to have restrictions on usage in residential areas.
I think we can all see the potential for disruption to residents but how much evidence is required to support this appears to be subjective.
They should count themselves lucky that they weren't arrested, as they were clearly breaking the law, being a group.
And that twitter thread includes this gem:
"Sean Kalkwarf
@TwittId
·
1h
Replying to
@MrSimonDudley
@KateAllan16
and 2 others
What makes it worse is that I am a direct neighbor of the cafe and I can confirm that I have had no contact from RBWM to find out if more than one neighbor has an issue with the Cafe and/or its clients. I don’t think they’ve done their jobs properly..."
And this one:
Stan
@geckobike
Replying to
@RBWM
so the previous planning for flats was rejected (in part) because the loss of the pub would mean the loss of refreshments for people visiting the area ... INCLUDING CYCLISTS....
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBbqTDpWkAIe_5j?format=jpg&name=small
It sure has been a busy time on @rbwm with a lot of people speculating about “does a councillor live nearby?” Stuff. Let’s not rush to believe the very worst, but having seen an extract of the injunction I’m really surprised that it’s come to this.
You do wonder if there’s another sub-text: I saw a letter to the Henley Standard in 2012 complaining about groups of cyclists on local country lanes - I drafted a really witty A Doctor Writes... response, but never got round to sending it in. Mr Motorist probably wants his drive-able roads clear of pesky cyclists.
I say all this as someone who believes that nuisances affect people’s lives and there should be ways to resolve these. Your dog might be happily (or unhappily) barking its head off in the garden, but what about the bed-bound person in the next door back bedroom, or the person that’s received bad news just as your barbecue kicks off. You may not know whether or not these these things are present, but you should consider the possibility.
Anyway, My Twitter challenge for the council to spell out how it’s gone about this - the main point is are they sure that the actions taken are proprtionate to the problem? So what’s their assessment of the problem on the ground? How many Lycra louts, when, for how long, what happened to cause the alleged nuisance? (I’d want some convincing of a pretty bad nuisance impairing people’s lives there.) What’s been done so far to address any issues with what response - that’s an important missing piece in this story. have they followed their enforcement policy, are the actions taken properly authorised?
never let the facts get in the way of a good story. If it should turn out that at intervals from 8:30 every Weekend 10 months of the year there are 30 people congregating, clattering about in their SPD-R cleats, smoking, talking loudly/shouting, littering, throwing their leg over the crossbar, then we have to accept responsibility and try to be better neighbours. Even if all that’s true, I still think much worse happens at sea. A few drops of mineral oil in your freehub might be all it takes.
Who the hell is 'we' in your comment?
The 'injunction' as worded seems to apply to all 'cyclists', whether part of a club or not, even if they arrive by car. This makes no sense at all. Are they saying nobody who has ever ridden a bike can use the cafe? I don't even understand how it is an 'injunction' anyway. Which court granted it? Nothing about this makes any sense.
Has there even been a case of such a ruling about 'motorists'? or 'pedestrians'? No pedestrians are to use the cafe as a meeting place, whether they arrive by car or bus or bike?
The whole story is baffling.
Does it matter if you're a large group but not an organised cycle club?
Would a group of school kids who've just passed their Bikeability be allowed to stop there or is that an organised club meet?
What about if five people turn up, then another two who happen to know the first group but aren't in the same club? Would alarms sound and the council would send in the SPG?
If you refer to the screenshot from RoseRider, I'd say that is the enforcement notice served on the cafe owner to use the cafe in a certain way in accordance with planning restrictions.
I don't think any injunction has been served on the clubs (and I can't see how or who would apply for one showing sufficient evidence - and against whom exactly would it be issued) and roadcc haven't helped by saying the Council issued an injunction on the clubs then next story the Council obtained an injunction, then next story the Council wrote to the clubs.
I agree with your interpretation of the text, but it seems very unfair on the cafe owner.
The first part is easy enough to implement - a couple of signs and something on their website, if they have one, saying no cyclists' meetings or congregations.
The second part though strikes me as being impossible for the staff in the cafe to enforce as they have no control over whether hordes of cyclists turn up in disobedience of the sign, like waves breaking on the shore.
The council seem to be a congregation of Cnuts, and expect the cafe owner to behave like one.
Completely unenforceable and perverse planning decision. All they need to do is say "this isn't a cyclist's meeting, we're leg shaving enthusiasts, who happened to travel here by bike".
The injunction
327A338E-28E8-493D-82CD-2F61EE313A58.jpeg
Have a look at @RBWM on Twitter. They're coming in for some right grief over their intended "clarification". The poor social media bod has been hitting the same copy/paste reply over and over and none of it has actually answered the questions that are being raised.
There were two really simple options for this:
1) write to the cafe owner and say "we've had a couple of complaints about noise, can you pop a sign outside saying "please be considerate to our neighours, keep the noise down".
2) email the complainant saying "dear sir/madam, please fuck off"
But oh no, they've gone down the third option of shooting themselves in the foot and spending a lot of council tax money in doing so.
Normally noise complaints have to be documented to prove it's actually "unreasonable". If you make a complaint, the council would normally ask you to keep a log of it, they may even give you a decibel meter and then they'd analyse it based on the venue.
Might be worth a FOI to ask what records and proof they've got of the "disruption"...
Another entertaining option might be to meet up there and loudly exclaim "ooh, fancy seeing you here!" and "I was just out for a SOLO ride and thought I'd stop for a coffee, you must have been doing the same?!"
Pages