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 
Tribunal vidory for Greens
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Residents and ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIONS from local authorities and residents led to a haulier's application to open an extra operating centre being rejected on appeal.
The Transport Tribunal accepted objections on environmental and road safety grounds when Bridport-based Jonathan Hansford appealed a decision by the Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner Alan Bourlet not to grant him an additional op erating centre at Axminster. The case was unusual because the Tribunal also ruled that TCs should not become involved in disputed areas of planning usage.
Hansford. who trades as Jonathan Hansford Plant Hire with a licence for five vehicles and two trailers, had applied to base two vehicles at Kilmington in Axminster.
The DTC ruled that the site was unsuitable on both road safety and environmental grounds following opposition from Devon County Council, East Devon District Council and two neighbouring residents.
In May 2001, a Lawful Development Certificate was granted which certified that the site had been used for a period of not less than 10 years prior to June 2000 as a yard for the storage of timber, topsoil, machinery, tractors and trailers, and other vehicles.These commodities were associated with a tree surgeon and landscaping contractor's business.
The certificate was for a business owned by Hansford's father, which used the land for a different purpose to his son's proposal.
For Hansford, Marc Willers argued that the DTC should have concluded that the existing use under the certificate would not be increased by the proposed use as an operating centre.
He also argued that the DTC had failed to consider whether the imposition of conditions could have overcome the accepted road safety problems and any adverse environmental conditions.
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that a Lawful Development Certificate was not to be regarded as planning permission.
The certificate related to the existing use, which might be unsuitable but was protected. It was unnecessary for the DTC to go behind the actual wording of the certificate and make a comparison between existing use and likely extra use as an operating centre.
It was clear that the DTC, who twice visited the site, had the possibility of imposing conditions in mind but chose to refuse the application outright, which he was entitled to do. •