AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Renewal without inquiry

11th January 1996
Page 18
Page 18, 11th January 1996 — Renewal without inquiry
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?

• Despite representations from neighbours, North Western LA Martin AIbu has renewed the licence held by Ken Smith (Hauliers) with an increase in authorisation at one of the firm's four operating centres, without holding a public inquiry The company had applied to renew its licence, with an increase in authorisation at the Thornsett Trading Estate, Birch Vale, New Mills, from 10 vehicles and 15 trailers to 15 vehicles and 20 trailers. Representations were received from 14 local residents, who complained about the noise of lorry movements in the early hours. They also claimed that maintenance work was being carried out at times that broke conditions imposed following a public inquiry in December 1992.

In a written decision, Albu said

MEN Pm!

the firm had written to him denying the allegations made by the residents. In addition, letters had been received from three of its customers who would be adversely affected if any restrictions were placed on the hours that the company's vehicles could enter and leave the site.

Thornsett Trading Estate had an established industrial use which involved some movement of heavy vehicles. The firm had been operating from there since 1993. The site was in a valley and Albu accepted that noise from it affected the residents whose houses overlooked the valley. However, it might well be that as the firm claimed, not all the noise came from its operations.

He had no control over the movement of other vehicles that might visit the site to collect and deliver goods and it might be those movements that were caus jog some of the disturbance complained of.

In any case, said Albu, he could not refuse an application on environmental grounds when a proposed operating centre was already in use as such, which was the case here. He could, however, refuse the proposed increase in the number of vehicles, or he could attach conditions to the licence but in doing so he must consider the likely affects on the firm's business.

He did not consider that there were sufficient grounds for refusing the proposed increase in the number of vehicles and trailers, but the conditions imposed in December 1992 would continue.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus