AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

May len win renewal battle with Council lorries. GILLINGHAM operators Maylen

2nd January 1976, Page 13
2nd January 1976
Page 13
Page 13, 2nd January 1976 — May len win renewal battle with Council lorries. GILLINGHAM operators Maylen
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Storage and Warehousing Ltd successfully renewed their 0-Licence at a resumed hearing at Maidstone last week.

Deputy South Eastern Licensing Authority, Mr George Mercer, granted the 0-Licence renewal, from last August, for 33 vehicles and 36 trailers in possession plus six vehicles and four trailers to be acquired.

The Maylen renewal bid (see CM, December 5) opposed by Gillingham Borough Council under the 1974 Road Traffic Act may prove of significant national interest. The right of a local authority to question the suitability of an operating centre in relation to the vehicles employed would have been given much impetus had the appeal against renewal been successful.

Mr B. G. Holland, assistant planning officer, Gillingham Borough Council, said the area of the operating centre was about .6 of an acre. The operating site must be considered unsatisfactory and it was a "non-conforming user" under planning laws.

The council, said Mr Holland, had considered acquiring the site between 1966 and 1969 but compulsory purchase was not proceeded with because of the high cost of acquisition.

Questioned by Mr A. J. Broome, deputy Town Clerk, Gillingham, Mr Holland said that the site was not large enough for •the number of vehicles accommodated. The road access was not satisfactory and use as a road transport depot was "severely detrimental" to adjacent occu piers of property.

Major S. G. Champion, for Maylen, suggested to Mr Holland that when the business was started in 1930 the depot was in open country. If the Maylen premises were now in a residential area this must be due to the action of the Council and its predecessors. Mr Holland agreed this was so and he accepted that there had been a desire by all parties to re-locate the Maylen business, with lengthy negotiations about possible sites.

Another Council witness, Mr A. Gibb Smith, assistant engineer, said the Maylen site, if marked out as a lorry park to the recommendations issued by the Road Haulage Association, would be sufficient for 12 to 15 Mr Gibb Smith said the access to the depot was substandard. At the tightest point the access road was Ilft wide. The surface was poor and sight lines at the access to Wigmore Road were unsatisfactory.

After the result of the inquiry Mr L. Le Warne, managing director of Maylen said he was very pleased with the result. The costs involved in the hearing, and earlier professional costs, amounted to over £4,000 and Maylen would have to consider whether to refer some of these costs to Gillingham Council.

"We fought for our industry in this case," said Mr Le Warne. "We've received incredible support from all the Medway Towns and we feel — all of us — rather like folk eroes."