ulti-use ddle
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
environmental legislation are well illustrated by a recent case dealt with by the Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority Professor Charles Arnold-Baker.
Three associated operators, A E Bowman, with a licence for 10 vehicles and five trailers; Bowmans Transport (Mansfield) Ltd, with a licence for 25 vehicles and six trailers; and R F and G Bowman, with a licence for 10 vehicles and two trailers; are all based at the operating centre at Kitchener Drive, Mansfield, in the middle of a high-density residential area. Two of those firms, A E Bowman and Bowmans Transport (Mansfield) applied for renewal of their licences at the same time. The applica tions attracted objections from Nottinghamshire County Council and Mansfield District Council. And there were representations from 48 neighbouring residents plus a petition.
One resident complained that the applications had been advertised in a Nottingham paper, which although it circulated in Mansfield, it could not be regarded as a local paper.
Professor Arnold-Baker referred to a High Court ruling that advertising in a horse-racing paper was sufficient to meet the advertisement requirement in another area of legislation, if the paper concerned circulated in the area. He said he had to follow the High Court and if the paper circulated in the area, that was sufficient.
The local authorities maintained that the surrounding road network was unsuitable for regular use by heavy vehicles. The Bowman operations were creating noise and nuisance to residents, as well as traffic congestion. The district council said it had offered to help relocate the businesses in industrial location, but they conceded it was difficult to find a suitable site.
The residents also complained about structural damage being caused to their properties.
After it was indicated that Bowman Transport's application would be reduced to 15 vehicles and six trailers, evidence was given that the Bowman family had operated from the site for more than 30 years, operating as many as 43 vehicles at one time. The local authority had indicated that land would not be available for an alternative site for three years. Bowman had made various unsuccessful enquiries, as it wanted to move. Even if it sold its existing site for redevelopment, there would be a shortfall of around £200,000 if the move was to custom-built premises.
In his decision, Arnold-Baker said that it was an established business that had been in its present location for a very long time. It was common ground that it was the wrong place for an operating centre, and the sooner the firms got out the better for everyone. If he refused to renew the licences it would jeopardise the whole process of moving and put a lot of people out of work. He had to look at the situation now, bearing in mind that the firms would move within a period of time. It was clear that he had to do something for the residents, who were having to put up with more than could reasonably be expected.
Consequently he proposed renewing the licences in the terms now sought until the end of 1993, so that they would expire at the same time as the licence currently held by R F & G Bowman, but subject to a number of conditions.
He asked for, and was given, undertakings that the firms operate a lOmph speed limit on three of the neighbouring roads, warning that a breach of such an undertaking brought into question the repute of an operator.
Arnold-Baker initially proposed imposing these conditions: 1. Not more than two authorised vehicles to queue or wait on Kitchener Drive. 2. There to be no movement of authorised vehicles Monday to Saturday before 06:00hrs or after 20.00hrs, except on one day when vehicles may start at 04:00hrs. On Sundays the number of vehicle movements to be confined to three per day.
Other agreed conditions were: 1. No authorised vehicles to be parked on roads in the vicinity of the operating centre. 2. No authorised vehicles to reverse out of the operating centre. 3. Not more than a combined 25 authorised vehicles and 11 trailers to be operated from the site by the two firms at any one time. 4. There would be no movement of authorised vehicles on bank holidays. The DLA proposed that the conditions should take effect from 1 September.
For the two firms, it was said that the time condition would create problems. Timing was absolutely crucial to their operations.
Arnold-Baker refused to alter the proposed conditions and said it was all very well for the operator to say that he was going to lose money. The neighbours had given up some of their enjoy ment of life, and their houses were possibly devaluing because the operator was making money. He was prepared to put the implementation of the conditions back to November.
The decision is not likely to satisfy either side. The residents have to wait until at least November for any alleviation of their problems. The firms are faced with having to try to persuade their customers to alter the pattern of operation without losing business.
The situation is a prime example of the problems that are occurring where operating centres have in the past been adequate for the type of vehicle operated 20 years ago, but are no longer suit-.
ed to the type and size of modern vehicles. It also illustrates the lack of ability or will on the part of local authorities to make proper provision for transport depots at a realistic price.
The case highlights one of the great weaknesses of the environmental legis lation, namely the multi-use depot.
Though Professor Arnold-Baker has taken steps to solve the problem in the future by ensuring that the licences of all three firms expire at the same time, the current situation is that even if the conditions are imposed in November, they will be almost unenforceable. There will be three operators operating from the same centre with the conditions only applying to the vehicles operated by two of them. That will make it an almost impossible task for residents or enforcement officers to identify which vehicle is bound by the conditions and which is not.