Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
basingstoke123
Posts: 161
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby basingstoke123 » 16 Oct 2020, 11:34pm

Winklebury Cycles is (was) the one remaining cycle shop in Basingstoke (excluding Halfords), and has just been shut out of their shop.

See:
https://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/ne ... ked-store/
and
https://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/ne ... -asbestos/

Winklebury Cycles is a long established cycle shop in Basingstoke, with a large stock of cycles, and friendly service. According to the Gazette, their landlord, Vivid (large housing association) locked them out following a dispute over them dealing with asbestos instead of Vivid not dealing with it.

Mike_Ayling
Posts: 248
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 3:02am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby Mike_Ayling » 17 Oct 2020, 6:31am

Well somebody is telling porkies!

Mike

Jdsk
Posts: 2935
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby Jdsk » 17 Oct 2020, 8:37am

Same thought as Mike.

And the second article says that the business will reopen soon.

Jonathan

eileithyia
Posts: 8068
Joined: 31 Jan 2007, 6:46pm
Location: Horwich Which is Lancs :-)

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby eileithyia » 17 Oct 2020, 9:16am

As with all, there is probably 2 sides to the story, with a bit of what each side believes has ocurred thrown in.
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells

slowster
Posts: 1686
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby slowster » 17 Oct 2020, 1:37pm

The landlord describes the removal and disposal of asbestos by the tenant as "illegal". The tenant says “there was a chance the building ceiling was unsafe, at this point I thought I had no option but to resolve the matter at my own expense.”

The key question is exactly what the tenant did. Does "illegal" simply mean that it was not done with the agreement of the landlord and in accordance with the terms of lease despite being undertaken by a licenced contractor with all the safety precautions required by law, or does it mean that the asbestos was not removed by a licenced contractor?

Jdsk
Posts: 2935
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby Jdsk » 17 Oct 2020, 1:46pm

slowster wrote:Does "illegal" simply mean that it was not done with the agreement of the landlord and in accordance with the terms of lease despite being undertaken by a licenced contractor with all the safety precautions required by law, or does it mean that the asbestos was not removed by a licenced contractor?

"But Vivid have defended themselves, saying the move was “essential” and because of “serious breaches of the lease which included the illegal removal and disposal of asbestos”."

Whatever else happened I'd put my money on that last bit being not untrue.

Jonathan

mumbojumbo
Posts: 568
Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby mumbojumbo » 17 Oct 2020, 4:58pm

The owner made this remark,which is is clearly false.
"“They refused me entry or access to my stock, caused damage to my goods and effectively threw me out onto the street,” Gary told The Gazette."

He was refused access and also thrown out.A landlord would not risk leaving asbestos and offered to remove the same,but the owner did not cooperate and blockes access.The citizen comments show how little they know about health and safety.

basingstoke123
Posts: 161
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby basingstoke123 » 18 Oct 2020, 12:09am

mumbojumbo wrote:The owner made this remark,which is is clearly false.
"“They refused me entry or access to my stock, caused damage to my goods and effectively threw me out onto the street,” Gary told The Gazette."

He was refused access and also thrown out.A landlord would not risk leaving asbestos and offered to remove the same,but the owner did not cooperate and blockes access.The citizen comments show how little they know about health and safety.


Not sure how you conclude that the claim by Gary is false.

Obviously there is more to the story than reported. Their closure, whether short or long, will be a loss to Basingstoke. The only other cycle shop is Halfords, with the cycle section conveniently located upstairs, and the shop in what must be one of the most cycle hostile locations on Basingstoke.

There used to be Basing Cycles in the town centre (the real town centre, not the shopping mall which everyone mistakenly calls the town centre), but closed almost 2 years ago December. They were suffering from a decreasing footfall due to the reducing number of shops, and that was before the Post Office closed (and moved into WHSmith). It is still available to let, if you are interested.

Winklebury Cycles is in a 1960s shopping parade, with flats above. Although only one side of the parade has shops. Vivid (whom I had never heard of) is the current landlord, having taken over the previous housing association (and many others in Hampshire and surrounding counties). Apparently there is an intention to redevelop the centre. It looks like about £0 has been spent on improvements in the last 50 years.

Redevelopment - this will not encourage the landlord to do anything but the absolute minimum maintenance. It might be rather convenient if there is a dispute with a tenant. The adjacent shop has already moved out. The pub opposite is derelict, with no evidence of the granted planning permission taking place.

slowster
Posts: 1686
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby slowster » 18 Oct 2020, 3:27pm

basingstoke123 wrote:Not sure how you conclude that the claim by Gary is false.

If Gary had arranged for the asbestos to removed and disposed of properly, he would almost certainly have been at great pains to tell the Basingstoke Gazette, because

- licenced asbestos contractors are expensive, because
- they have to take a lot of expensive precautions to protect themselves and others, e.g. respiratory protective equipment, disposable protective clothing, sealing the rooms and using negative pressurisation to reduce the risk of asbestos fibres escaping etc. etc., and because
- commercial disposal of asbestos at waste handling centres is expensive.
- Gary would therefore have had to close the shop for some time while those precautions were put in place, the asbestos removed, the area checked for remaining fibres, and the various equipment removed.

If all that had happened, and Gary had paid for it, he would have told the Basingstoke Gazette. So I suspect that Gary did it on the cheap, either doing it himself, getting his shop employees to do it, or using a contractor who is not licenced and wouldn't have taken the necessary precautions. That would explain the landlord closing the shop and denying him access, because potentially asbestos fibres would have been spread around the shop, and the whole shop will probably now have to be checked and possibly decontaminated. If an unlicenced contractor was used, that probably also means that the asbestos will not have been disposed of safely and that it may even have been fly-tipped.

I hope I am wrong, because I am hoping for their sake that Gary has not exposed his employees or anyone else to the large quantities of airborne asbestos fibres that can be produced when asbestos is removed. Diseases caused by asbestos like mesothelioma and lung cancer are horrible ways to die, and are awful for the family members and friends who watch the person suffering and very slowly dying. However, reading between the lines I doubt that I am wrong.

You presumably posted this thread expecting support for Gary, his friendly service, and the loss of a convenient shop. Based on the facts available so far and what they strongly suggest, you are not getting it from me.

peetee
Posts: 2470
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm
Location: Cornwall

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby peetee » 18 Oct 2020, 9:50pm

Is it common for a tenant to be responsible for removal of such a material? If it was added as part of the fittings of the shop and not a constituent part of the building structure then I could see how it could be but asbestos legislation has been in place so long that such an addition would surely have been before the current occupancy?
Current status report:
Back on two wheels in deepest Pastyland and loving every minute. Mission: to enjoy big, bad hills again.

fastpedaller
Posts: 2620
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby fastpedaller » 20 Oct 2020, 11:12pm

It is important to recognise that some asbestos material doesn't require removal by licensed contractors (or certainly didn't when I removed some asbestos board when extending my property 10 years ago). Wetting asbestos board (or similar) also considerably reduces any risk of airborne particles.
There are a lot of people ready to hold up their hands in horror as soon as the A word is mentioned (any multiply usual disposal costs by a huge factor)

Tangled Metal
Posts: 7146
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby Tangled Metal » 21 Oct 2020, 7:47am

It does depend on what form the asbestos is in. The issue is risk of fibre release but a lot of instances of asbestos is in encapsulated form which isn't necessarily that much of a hazard. For example I've known asbestos found in council houses (there are still some, not all housing associations) during surveys that took years before the council finally took it out. When they did it was a quick job without all the negative pressure stuff mentioned upthread.

At work they moved a filing cabinet up when they closed a regional office. The employee chose not to come up so others went through the files and found a bag of pure Chrysotile asbestos, the worst form and in native form like that not something you'd want to be around. They called a local asbestos disposal company and they said to put the bag into another one and drive it round to us. That's what they did and it simply got thrown into a plastic lined skip at the disposal company. No extra precautions.

If you have it in your own house you are allowed to remove it and can arrange to take it to one of the council run waste sites. You just have to protect yourself. No specialist equipment other than PPE and something you wet it down to minimise dust.

It's not nice stuff but there's a real scare story about it. It's one family of materials that are hazardous but there's many that I bet people are dealing with that's either in the same IARC category or the one level below. Even fibrous loft insulation has an IARC category. Even aloe vera extract is classified as 2B possibly carcinogenic to humans for example. Anyone got that in a cosmetic product? They might be lower category and risk but still a risk nobody considers despite more likely to contact.

Then there's whole article exemptions of stuff with a more serious classification on the simple grounds they're in an article (which you cut to size releasing the content).

Btw I studied asbestos research back 20 odd years ago as part of my first degree. I also had a job that dealt with a small part of the building sector and I have worked for decades dealing with fibre and fibrous materials. I'm no expert on the regulations regarding asbestos specifically but a former friend I got a lot of information from was an asbestos surveyor. I found it interesting that a large part of their work was in schools. He also advised to leave asbestos where it was, untouched, as the safest option.

Tangled Metal
Posts: 7146
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby Tangled Metal » 21 Oct 2020, 7:52am

Sorry for the long post. I didn't even say what I meant to say.

There's no way if knowing the truth in article like those from clickbait local rags.

Don't you just hate local rags and their websites that when you get to the page and find it's mostly adverts and the text repeats itself to pad things out. Then when you go back a page to where you saw the link posted on a forum you find that you've not even left the local rags site. You have to back space a few times to get back. Annoying!

peetee
Posts: 2470
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm
Location: Cornwall

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby peetee » 21 Oct 2020, 8:46am

Tangled Metal wrote:Sorry for the long post. I didn't even say what I meant to say.

There's no way if knowing the truth in article like those from clickbait local rags.

Don't you just hate local rags and their websites that when you get to the page and find it's mostly adverts and the text repeats itself to pad things out. Then when you go back a page to where you saw the link posted on a forum you find that you've not even left the local rags site. You have to back space a few times to get back. Annoying!

Yep. Pretty much echoes what I wrote on the cyclist dies of cold thread.
Current status report:
Back on two wheels in deepest Pastyland and loving every minute. Mission: to enjoy big, bad hills again.

Jdsk
Posts: 2935
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Winklebury Cycles, Basingstoke, evicted

Postby Jdsk » 21 Oct 2020, 9:47am

Safe handling of asbestos is only relevant to this via the alleged illegality. But the definitive guidance is at:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/guidance/a0.Pdf

Jonathan

PS: Asbestos, Quebec is trying to change its name:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/asbestos-quebec-name-change-val-des-sources-1.5768512