AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Licence application was not properly advertised

18th November 2004
Page 32
Page 32, 18th November 2004 — Licence application was not properly advertised
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?

THE TRANSPORT Tribunal has upheld a TC's decision to refuse a licence application because the advertisement could have misled potential objectors over the operating centre's location.

An application by Tonbridge-based Brendan Gillivan, trading as Gillivan Skip Hire, had been denied by South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps on the grounds it had not been properly advertised.

Gillivan had applied for a two vehicle licence after buying an existing skip hire business based at Maskell's Fartn,just outside the village of Matfield, Kent. He gave a correspondence address of rear of the Star Inn, Matfield. Tonbridgez the application was advertised on the basis that this was lobe the operating centre.

There was an objection from Tonbridge Highway Unit, but after plans were received they said it appeared the operating centre was at the side of the Star Inn and local residents who might have felt their grounds for representation were weak would now have a much stronger case. As a result the TC refused the application on the grounds that the advertisement did not correctly identify the operating centre.

Appearing before the Tribunal, David Zackheirri, for Gillivan. said the intention was to park the vehicles at Maskell's Farm, as before. The publican of the Star Inn had offered to help by providing office accommodation and one of the skips was regularly left in the car park for rubbish to be deposited in.

Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that information had not been available to the TC at the time of the original hearing. He had concluded the advertisement differed from the proposal set out in the plans and he could not be satisfied that nobody had been prejudiced as a result. On the material before him, those conclusions were plainly right.


comments powered by Disqus