Council hits back in Velolife cycle cafe row – cyclists CAN use cafe insists statement… they just can’t “meet” there or congregate outside

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.

They're getting torn to pieces on Twitter and it's been going on all through the night 

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

Quote:

Think I’ll cycle to @thevelolife over the weekend. Sounds like a great spot for a coffee. Something @RBWM should be supporting given what fantastic mass participation activity cycling is

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

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

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!

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.

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. 

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

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?!"