Operatim base was unlawful
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BECAUSE TWO valid ph ning enforcement noti4 were in force in regard to operating centre of E. P. E and R. A. Sparrow, Plant a Machinery, the West Midis LA Arthur Crabtree I refused their application fo licence.
Mr Crabtree said it IA impossible for him to gran licence as he could not ri that an operating centre suitable if it was unlawful. 'I partnership of Pool Hou Monkhaide, was seeking take over a standard natio] licence for one vehicle w one to be acquired from R.
Sparrow, Plant a Machinery. The applicati was opposed by Malvern Hi District Council.
Edward Ball, a partner, st that Pool House was a 10-at smallholding from which also operated three vehicles his own name.
Admitting he had been p] secuted for non-complian with planning enforceme notices in 1975 and 1976, 1 Ball said that if he had be legally represented at the (A set it would not have ha pened. He had now been a vised he had rights of est blished use and the coun had been wrong in the acti they had taken. Strangely e ough, the council was his Ix customer.
For the council, Mr I. W lace said they maintained th the use of the land for al activity involving commerc vehicles was unlawful.
Mr Ball appeared to igno the law and the council 11 been taking proceedin, against him for 10 years.
They had decided not continue to prosecute for no compliance with the enforc ment notices because of ti lenient view taken by ti magistrates.
Consideration had be given to seeking an injuncti in the High Court to stop ti continued use, but this been dropped on the groun of expense.