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 
Focus TRIBUNAL TOPICS
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Video view
A film was shown of tipper lorries manoeuvring to enter yard 51/2 metres wide
VIDEO of tipper lorries manoeuvring to get into their yard in a five and a half metres wide residential road was shown to the Transport Tribunal during appeal A29.
The Tribunal, which was hearing the appeal against the grant of an operator's licence with this yard as operating base, later allowed the appeal.
The appeal was by Surrey County Council and Spelthorne Borough Council against the granting of the licence, with conditions, by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, to Douglas Charles Morris. The video was part of the evidence used in opposing the application.
The video showed the first two vehicles to return to the operating centre and reversing onto the site. The first stopped and reversed straight in. The second reversed and then went forward again and then changed to another more experienced driver who reversed in without further trouble.
"We saw the video," says the Tribunal's written judgment, "and the second vehicle's offside front wheel appeared to be just about on the edge of the kerb outside the Kaminskis' house. In that position the front offside of the cab was more than half way across the pavement."
Morris, the respondent, bought 18 Mornington Road, Ashford, Middlesex, in 1982. He acquired it with the benefit of an Established Use Certificate granted on 20 April 1976 "for the storage of tyres, motor vehicles (commercial and private), motor spares and accessories; also repair and maintenance of own vehicles".
At that time he held a standard operator's licence for four vehicles. He lived and carried on his business from 46 Wolsey Road. From 1982 he had space to park vehicles at 46 Wolsey Road and 18 Mornington Road.
On 14 March in March 1984 the LA granted him a further licence for four vehicles, expiring at the end of January 1989. His place of business was given as 46 Wolsey Road.
On 3 January 1989 the operator applied to vary his licence giving 18 Mornington Road as his proposed operating centre. About 70 representations against the application were received from households in the vicinity on environmental grounds, including: noise, fumes, vibration, damage to trees, paving, kerb stones, gas mains and walls, and the unpleasant visually obtrusive appearance of parked vehicles.
Surrey County Council objected on the grounds that the operating centre was too small because vehicles could not turn round inside and had to back into it, and in the course of this manoeuvre vehicles mounted the pavement and blocked the
A
road. The council also said there was an adverse environmental impact of parked vehicles; and noise, vibration and fumes.
Spelthorne council said that also there was a potential hazard at the entrance.
The LA found that the yard was suitable under the terms of Section 64(2)(d) of the Transport Act 1968, but unsuitable under the environmental provisions of S696.
The LA said that the grant would not result in a material change in the structure or the use of the operating centre currently authorised, so he could not refuse because of Section 696(5). He also found that parking would not cause adverse effects on the environment under S6913(3).
Therefore, said the LA, he would grant the application with conditions limiting the running of engines and maintenance to certain hours. When not being worked upon, he said, the vehicles should be parked with the tipper bodies lowered.
The two councils appealed to the Tribunal from that decision.
Their main submissions were that the LA should have concluded that: • 18 Mornington Road was unsuitable under Section 64(2)(d); • The application should have been refused under Section 696(3) because of adverse environmental effects; • He should not have found that there was no material change under S6913(5); • The application should have been refused on environmental grounds in addition to parking.
Reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal says the Mornington Road base is a yard 75ft long by and 50ft wide, with 30-tonne tippers, eight feet wide. There is room for all four vehicles, but they cannot turn round once they have entered. Mornington Road is a residential road five and a half metres wide with footpaths each side. On-street parking is not restricted.
Next door neighbour DJ Reynolds said he could not park outside because his vehicles kept getting damaged; Mrs Kaminski, opposite, said she frequently saw lorries mount the pavement.
Morris said that never to his knowledge had his lorries mounted the pavement opposite. The LA, giving his reason why he found the site suitable, said that there was room for parking four vehicles in the yard; indeed, council photographs showed five could be accommodated. The video showed that a high degree of skill was not needed.
Dermot Main-Thompson, for the appellants, submitted to the Tribunal that the LA had misdirected himself in forgetting or mis-remembering evidence that showed vehicles did encroach on pavements when entering the yard.
He said the respondent was not entitled to expect cars would not be parked opposite his entrance and there were factors to present a particular hazard. Even if lorries did not mount the pavement, their cabs extended significantly over it.
The Tribunal judgment finds that the LA must have forgotten the strength of evidence not cross-examined that authorised vehicles mounted the opposite pavement on occasions. The LA, it says, also misdirected himself in finding the operator had the right to expect the way into 18 Mornington Road would be kept tree and house owners opposite would not park outside their homes.
Therefore, says the Tribunal, there is no need to send the application back to the LA for further consideration since it has no doubt 18 Mornington Road is unsuitable for use as an operating centre.
Going on to consider the adverse environmental effects of authorised vehicles when parked at the operating base, the Tribunal finds the LA misdirected himself and once again there is no need to remit to the LA. "In our judgment, even when the lorry bodies are lowered, there is very serious adverse visual impact ..."
The evidence that the LA found there was no material change under S696(5) is reviewed by the Tribunal for several pages, finding that the respondent failed to prove that the grant of the application would not result in such change.
The Tribunal also finds that if the LA had not wrongly misdirected himself on S6913(5) with regard to environmental grounds in addition to parking, it is very probable he would have refused the licence on environmental grounds disclosed by overwhelming evidence.
The Tribunal accordingly allowed the appeals and quashed the grant of the licence.