Weirdly no mention of the crooked councillor who initiated the complaint? Must be his 2nd strike now, surely?
He doesn't appear on the "who's-who" for the council: https://rbwm.moderngov.co.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1
Hang on – there’s a few bell-ends in one village and suddenly the whole country is tarred and everyone in it?
Not cool.
Yea but it is isn't it, bizarre as ****.
Weirdly no mention of the crooked councillor who initiated the complaint? Must be his 2nd strike now, surely?
His?
Are people getting mixed up? As far as I can see the councillor involved is this woman;
https://rbwm.moderngov.co.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=143
I believe she is the partner of the ex-publican/neighbour and lives with him at the same address.
Doesn’t mention anything to do with the original court case. Only that cycling clubs/cyclists won’t be targeted. I.e. they could still try and close the cafe, but won’t stop club runs going there.
Yes, good point. This joint announcement only addresses the issue of notices being sent to cycling clubs. It says very little about the original enforcement for breach of planning or the inspector's decision that upheld the aspect that relates to "cyclists meets" at the cafe, or the injunction against the Velolife that followed. This saga is likely to continue.
Mr Anwyl-Hughes is a Parish Councillor and lives in the adjacent property.
https://hurleyparish.org.uk/contacts.html
Yeah, it was only a partial success, the retraction was against clubs threatened with "being named as defendants"in any legal case.
The cafe is still very much in the crosshairs, seemingly just for existing.
Dear cafe,
People are visiting you, please stop facilitating this.
/facepalm
Yea but it is isn’t it, bizarre as ****.
Pretty sure bizarre people are all over the place, not just in England.
Actually, the injunction is not in force, but is still being sought by the council.
Hang on. Local council are quite happy to have a pub on the site. A pub where, on a Saturday night people get hammered, cause a nuisance, fight, shout and scream and commit acts of pety vandalism on the way home.
But a cafe, which is the complete opposite of this is a problem wkich needs eradicating.
Seriously
There must be a back story to this. Redevelopment of site for luxery flats perhaps,
Councillor owns cab company who get held up by the Sunday club run
Ex landlord wants back in to run his cafe to recover his losses from running a rubbish pub
Local councils and job titles, jeez same everywhere mind 9
I suspect its about cyclists getting in the way of their range rovers thus they want to stop cyclists being in the village. simple hatred of cyclists
Plausible?
tjagain
Member
I suspect its about cyclists getting in the way of their range rovers thus they want to stop cyclists being in the village. simple hatred of cyclists
I think this is mainly due to an ongoing grudge between the Cafe and local residents, particularly the neighbour. Which cant have been helped by the racket caused by early start meets at the Cafe.
I suspect there is also a bit of a "Boxhill effect" of frustration due to the local roads getting clogged up by Mamil peletons. I live in the adjacent parish (not part of RBWM) and there has been an ongoing commentary on the local facebook group. I havent seen a single anti-cyclist comment on there though which has surprised me as there have been anti-cyclist comments in the past.
crazy-legs
Subscriber
Yeah, it was only a partial success, the retraction was against clubs threatened with “being named as defendants”in any legal case.The cafe is still very much in the crosshairs, seemingly just for existing.
Correct, although I suspect, and hope that this is due to the bureaucracy lag it will take to withdraw the Injunction Application and there is probably further discussion between Velolife and RBWM needed on how to manage this moving forward.
It's been a while since I've seen The Edinburgh Defence being put to use...
Follow this link for the view from Cycling UK who met with the council yesterday: Cycle clubs can resume cafe stops but put cafe at risk if they do...
From the above link..
and that to do so would breach the terms of the draft injunction the Council has sought.
So it's a bollocks threat that hasn't been anywhere near a court.
Oh FFS
Should we all ask the council for details of Velolife, as it sounds like an excellent venue for itinerant cyclists to visit. Do they have contact details, opening times, website address - given of course that as a council they will be interested in promoting local businesses particularly to out of town folk.
And no, no, we’re not visiting as part of a cycling club. We’re just individuals who happen to ride bikes a bit.
Also ask them, given the UK’s net zero carbon targets what they are doing to promote low carbon transport like cycling.
Or perhaps we could form a coffee and cake eating club and arrange to meet st Velolife - members to arrange own transport.
Bemused by this bit of the Telegraph article:
"The Velolife Cafe was opened by Lee Goodwin in 2016 on the site of a former pub."
As I understand it planning permission protection for pubs only came in on 23rd May 2017, In 2016 change of use from A4 (drinking establishments) to A3 (restaurant and cafe) was permitted development if notified in advance.
I guess that by waiting until 2017 to make a fuss the council forced the new rules to apply to a retrospective application (retrospectively asking permission for something that didn't need permission at the time). That seems very fishy to me.
However the pub has 201 restaurant reviews on Trip Advisor, so it was operating as an A3 establishment before it became a cafe anyway.
I dont understand the conflicting press releases. It seems to have followed the following sequence
15th Aug: meeting between RBMW, BC and CUK
16th Aug am: Everyone says on Soc Med' its sorted except Velolife
16th August late am: Velolife say its not sorted
16th Aug pm: Cycling UK say that they thought it was sorted that morning, but it turns out it isnt.
Think I will drop a line to my local MP. Mrs May did say she was looking forward to serving her constituants again.
Think I will drop a line to my local MP. Mrs May did say she was looking forward to serving her constituants again.
Hah!
I hate being right.
But if I could spot the loophole big enough to drive a peleton through through, what work experience kid did CUK and BC send to discuss and word it!
It's just occurred to me, could Velolife apply for a licence as a pub instead of being a cafe?
Presumably there's a long, unchallenged history of a pub being run at that location, and if said pub happens to sell more coffee and cake than beer then it's probably not all that unusual these days.
Only major issue might be that the local authority put some limits on opening times i.e. no early opening and closed by 23:00 due to rural location? But that's OK, cyclist would swing by mid/post ride after 11:00am and he might shift some guest ales to the grumpy locals to assuage their rage in the evenings...
Grand title for work experience kid
Colin Walker Lead Cycling Delivery Manager at British Cycling
Just had a message from the cycling club following a meeting with BC and velolife, reading between the lines it might be slightly more to it than just red faced NIMBYism.
The advice amounts to (paraphrasing) "don't be a dick and block the neighbours driveway with bikes" and "don't use the driveway entrance, use the car park entrance at the other end".
Does make seeking an injunction seem like the nuclear option when a couple of signs saying "please put your bike in the bike rack not against this fence" would solve the issue.
Thought there might be a bit of that. Shocker - cyclists can be dicks too!
If you had had a mouthful from a few inconsiderate cycling customers when you'd asked them not to use your drive as a parking space for their toy you'd be inclined to hit the nuclear button, especial if you had a touch of Victor Meldrew about you.
Add 25p to each double shot latte to cover the cost of a huge scaffold pole bike rack then.
Mount said bike rack on the opposite side of the pub to the residents.
Instal a gateway blocking off the other entrance.
Put up a couple I'd dismount signs, and a noise one
Buy a shed load of cheapo cable locks from Px
Jon jobbed. It's not exactly rocket polishing or re inventing the rear mech is it.
The advice amounts to (paraphrasing) “don’t be a dick and block the neighbours driveway with bikes” and “don’t use the driveway entrance, use the car park entrance at the other end”.
Does make seeking an injunction seem like the nuclear option when a couple of signs saying “please put your bike in the bike rack not against this fence” would solve the issue.
I called in at the weekend. Nice cafe, good coffee and food. The signs saying where you could and couldn't park bikes were obvious + effective, I wondered if the point there ^ was part of it as the house behind + next to the cafe's driveway would easily be blocked by people congregating directly outside the entrance. Still, hardly seems like a fair a reason to revoke licenses etc.
Add 25p to each double shot latte to cover the cost of a huge scaffold pole bike rack then.
Mount said bike rack on the opposite side of the pub to the residents.
Instal a gateway blocking off the other entrance.
Put up a couple I’d dismount signs, and a noise one
Buy a shed load of cheapo cable locks from Px
Jon jobbed. It’s not exactly rocket polishing or re inventing the rear mech is it.
Done, there's already a rack, direction signs etc.
singletrackmind
Member
Add 25p to each double shot latte to cover the cost of a huge scaffold pole bike rack then.
Mount said bike rack on the opposite side of the pub to the residents.
Instal a gateway blocking off the other entrance.
Put up a couple I’d dismount signs, and a noise one
Buy a shed load of cheapo cable locks from Px
Jon jobbed. It’s not exactly rocket polishing or re inventing the rear mech is it.
Thats pretty much what's already there. Except the driveway runs between the 'pub' and the car park (with scaffold pole bike rack) so there's no easy physical way to stop cyclists accessing it.
Hence I imagine having to queue to get out of your own driveway past a load of cyclists milling about outside and bikes locked to your fence might get tireing quite quickly. Especially if your the local councilor with access to the aforementioned nuclear button to 'solve' it.
Ive ridden past loads, never stopped as I'm not really that into coffee and a nut allergy makes me avoid cake.
It can be infuriating when a group sees you approach and pull out anyway so they can stay as a group, I imagine that could also trigger a bit of anti cycling feeling amongst the locals.
Good luck to them though,
It can be infuriating when a group sees you approach and pull out anyway so they can stay as a group, I imagine that could also trigger a bit of anti cycling feeling amongst the locals.
That's rather unrelated to the parking issue but whatever...
On the continent, a bunch / peloton / group is treated as a single entity. If the front pair pull away, get onto a roundabout, get through a set of lights etc, the remainder of the group has automatic right of way. Similar to the tractor unit of a lorry pulling out - the rest of the lorry follows. It's because it's far safer to do that than to have the back half of the group slamming on brakes, the front half then dawdling, looking back and waiting.
That’s rather unrelated to the parking issue but whatever…
On the continent, a bunch / peloton / group is treated as a single entity. If the front pair pull away, get onto a roundabout, get through a set of lights etc, the remainder of the group has automatic right of way. Similar to the tractor unit of a lorry pulling out – the rest of the lorry follows. It’s because it’s far safer to do that than to have the back half of the group slamming on brakes, the front half then dawdling, looking back and waiting.
I agree it has nothing to do with parking, just an observation from a passing rider.
Also we're not 'on the continent'
Thats pretty much what’s already there. Except the driveway runs between the ‘pub’ and the car park (with scaffold pole bike rack) so there’s no easy physical way to stop cyclists accessing it.
Is the covered seating area and bike rack still right next to the neighbour's driveway?
Hence I imagine having to queue to get out of your own driveway past a load of cyclists milling about outside and bikes locked to your fence might get tireing quite quickly.
Especially with how entitled some cyclists can be about their rights to be on the road etc.
That’s rather unrelated to the parking issue but whatever…
On the continent, a bunch / peloton / group is treated as a single entity. If the front pair pull away, get onto a roundabout, get through a set of lights etc, the remainder of the group has automatic right of way. Similar to the tractor unit of a lorry pulling out – the rest of the lorry follows. It’s because it’s far safer to do that than to have the back half of the group slamming on brakes, the front half then dawdling, looking back and waiting.
When a tractor or lorry driver pulls out they have an appreciation they are in a long slow vehicle and don't go for the same sized gap you'd go for in a car. Same should go for the lead riders in a peleton. I spent 20 years riding around in club group rides and yes it's great for you to be treated as a single entity but the flip side of that is to ride with intelligence and not be a dick. It's a general observation but a lot of the new breed of mamils did not spend their yoof getting schooled (and bollocked) by the old boys into knowing how to ride in a group well and how to play nicely with other road users. They have brought their entitled middle aged, middle manager bmw/audi ways to their roadcraft. And in this case I suspect their parking and knobbing about a cafe craft too.
gap you’d go for in a car
Interesting choice of language - 'go for' when applied to driving a vehicle on public roads(?)
Interesting choice of language – ‘go for’ when applied to driving a vehicle on public roads(?)
Totally valid choice of words. If you don't know what I mean you are being deliberately obtuse. Or are clueless and inexperienced of diving larger slower vehicles (HGV, coach, tractor and trailer). Which is it?
Totally valid choice of words. If you don’t know what I mean you are being deliberately obtuse. Or are clueless and inexperienced of diving larger slower vehicles (HGV, coach, tractor and trailer). Which is it?
I'd like to explore more the reasons for this aggression to be honest...
I’d like to explore more the reasons for this aggression to be honest…
Because your original post was clearly a snarky pop that I somehow had a flagrant attitude to the safety of others based on some sort of chip on your shoulder. I don't.
So which is it - obtuse or ignorant?
I won't respond again I don't want to derail an otherwise useful thread.
Ummm. I rather think you started it 😉
Ummm. I rather think you started it 😉
Oh, is he a newbie mamil a slightly sensitive to negative comments about his tribe?
The perils of the internet: I was actually replying to him rather than you, but chill anyway
Oh, is he a newbie mamil a slightly sensitive to negative comments about his tribe?
QED.
Didn't see this thread going anti bike.😳
I'm now waiting for someone to say they ride an ebike to the cafe then it can truly go thermonuclear.😁
Didn’t see this thread going anti bike.😳
I'm sure you've been here long enough to realise that it ALWAYS goes anti-bike.
^^ I didn't want to say but.... 😉
It's not gone anti-bike, it's gone anti-selfish-dickheads-who-ride-bikes
There's a difference that is frequently missed! 😉
I’m now waiting for someone to say they ride an ebike to the cafe then it can truly go thermonuclear
Nah, e-bikers prefer to sit around drinking coffee and talking a good ride at BPW.
A cafe in Berkshire just doesn't have enough pose value for their Instagram account followers.
Reading cycling UK interpretation, surely way ahead is trigger point 4? Obviously cafe will need legal/ financial support, but making council go to court to enforce unreasonable injunction would make formal legal challenge and have the council exposed for its lack of process and muppetry?
(not a lawyer so could be bobbins)
As I understand it planning permission protection for pubs only came in on 23rd May 2017, In 2016 change of use from A4 (drinking establishments) to A3 (restaurant and cafe) was permitted development if notified in advance.
I guess that by waiting until 2017 to make a fuss the council forced the new rules to apply to a retrospective application (retrospectively asking permission for something that didn’t need permission at the time). That seems very fishy to me.
I can't remember where I read it, but I think the Cafe owner applied for a Certificate of Lawfullness, ie, confirmation that it was permitted development, and was refused. On appeal, the Inspector granted permission, subject to the controversial condition.
The Injunction has been referred to as a 'draft' injunction, but I think it may actually be an 'interim' injunction, ie, it has to be complied with until the hearing. The interesting point is that if the court doesn't confirm the injunction, the council would be liable for damages (although whether there has actually been a loss of business may be hard to judge)
I can see it falling over to be honest.
Courts *hate* injunctions. They're usually incredibly difficult to enforce unless it is something very obvious (eg: Mr X must not contact his ex-wife by any means; the newspaper must not print any story about Mrs Y). Those ones are fairly easy to prove in court that he phoned her / that a story was printed and therefore breached the terms of the injunction.
Problem is that it needs to be spelled out and so far RBWM haven't actually spelt out what they mean by "cyclist meet". So you can't enforce an injunction when it's not clear what the terms of it are - what constitutes a "meeting"?
A surprising number of council legal departments operate in this slightly grey manner - they hope that the "threat of legal action" is enough to make the average member of the public go "oh dear, I'd better do as they say".
I still think it's major breach of protocol from the council - if everything about the complainant being a) the previous owner of the venue and b) a councillor is true then it's conflict of interest. Somewhere on twitter was an unsubstantiated comment that the complainant had actually told the cafe owner that it didn't matter what happened, he'd keep complaining until it was shut down. as I say though, no info to back that up so it could just have been rumour.
Problem is that it needs to be spelled out and so far RBWM haven’t actually spelt out what they mean by “cyclist meet”.
The other problem for enforcement is that the injunction only applies to the cafe owner. He's not allowed to "permit, encourage, facilitate or arrange" use as a cycle meet, but that doesn't stop somebody else arranging one. Is he then expected to ask every cafe customer "Are you part of a cycle meet?" and if so, to refuse to serve them and insist that they leave the building and the parking area. Is the owner liable if the customer replies, falsely, "no, I'm just out for a ride by myself"? It's not enforceable.
Assuming he hasn't done this already, surely he just needs to put up a big sign saying, "No organized bike meets permitted, violators will not be served." Then make sure it isn't blatantly violated and he's done what he can.
Assuming he hasn’t done this already, surely he just needs to put up a big sign saying, “No organized bike meets permitted, violators will not be served.” Then make sure it isn’t blatantly violated and he’s done what he can.
No because the definition of an "organised meet" has not been made. Is it 2 people? 20? What if one group of 5 bunps into another group of 5 and they happen to know each other? Is that organised or chance (and can it be proved either way)?
Ayway, it seems there's some further positive development:
https://twitter.com/Chris_Boardman/status/1165249108468228099
There was of course that most excellent bit of legislation from the late 80’s spawned from the Poll Tax or raves IIRC whereby gatherings of 3 or more people were to be deemed illegal and very much subject to police interference.
Just invoke that one.
There was of course that most excellent bit of legislation from the late 80’s spawned from the Poll Tax or raves IIRC whereby gatherings of 3 or more people were to be deemed illegal and very much subject to police interference.
Just invoke that one.
It was 1994 (Criminal Justice Act) and would probably require said gathered cyclists to be listening to 'repetitive beats' whilst in attendance.
Repetitive beats.
Would someone demonstrating a creak from their crankset every revolution count.lol😆
all over: https://twitter.com/BritishCycling/status/1194986358382714883
We’re pleased to announce that @RBWM have today withdrawn their application for an injunction against @thevelolife
We all assumed it would end like that...
Awaiting the FoI requests to the council as to how much money they've squandered on this over the last 2 years.
If the complainant is who it's alleged to be (local councillor) he should be sacked for misconduct in a public office.
Ummm. I rather think you started it
Did he invade Poland?
Dammit, i kinda wanted to see RBWM get laughed out of court.
Could use the crowd fund monies to launch a claim for loss of business or something?
Business apparently boomed on the back of this publicity, not sure there's a loss to pursue.
Would like the council's actions to be properly scrutinised. Local government ombudsman....?
What a waste of public money. Hope this bites the bitter bugger in his/her ass.
Whoever it was needs finding and a misconduct in a public office charge applied to them. (If it can be made to stick).