1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236 
Council charged an operator
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
£40,000 then blocks use of site A COUNCIL that charged a haulier £40,000 for operating authority and then opposed its application to run vehicles from its own site, has succeeded in stopping the firm from gaining a licence.
Surrey County Council had appealed against the grant of a licence to Chobham-based Ripley & Willis.As a result the Transport Tribunal has ordered South Eastern & MetropolitanTraffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps to reconsider the safety and environmental issues arising out of the access to the company's operating centre.
In 2002, Derek Willis and John Ripley had bought a site at Staple Hill Road. within Chobham Common and next to a National Nature Reserve, a site of Specific Scientific Interest and a Special Protection Area.
In 1994,a Certificate of Lawful Use was granted to the site for various uses. Before buying it the partners had obtained a Deed of Grant from the county council authorising vehicular access for any of the purposes in the Lawful Use Certificate.
The partners had paid the county council £40,000 for this certificate, so they were somewhat surprised when their subsequent application for a licence for two vehicles and two trailers was opposed by the county council and Surrey Heath Borough Council.
However, the TC granted the licence subject to a number of conditions and undertakings (CM 23 September 2004).
Appearing before the Tribunal for the councils, Demon Main Thompson argued the TC had failed to address the safety concerns raised by the two local authorities. It was specifically concerned with the potential conflict between HGVs, pedestrians and equestrians along the access road. He asked that the licence grant be quashed.
Directing the TC to reconsider the matter, the Tribunal said that while it was sure the TC had those issues at the forefront of his mind when he imposed the conditions and sought the undertakings that he did, his reasoning was not set out in his decision. it would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to substitute its own decision for that of the TC, as it had not had the benefit of a site visit or the same opportunity as theTC of hearing and assessing the witnesses.