AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal backs site rejection

20th January 2000
Page 18
Page 18, 20th January 2000 — Tribunal backs site rejection
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?

Keywords : Law / Crime

A Lancashire firm has lost its appeal against the refusal of North Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner Patrick Mulvenna to allow it to continue using premises it had used as an operating centre for many years.

The Transport Tribunal was told that Joseph and Kevin Brennan, trading as Brennan Paving Company, had operated four vehicles from Farm Street, -leywood, for a number of ;,ears. In October 1998 the

renewal fees were not paid and the licence terminated. In January 1999 the firm applied for a fresh licence for three vehicles to be operated from Farm Street and for four vete cles to be operated from Green Lane, Heywood. Representations were received from neighbours about the Farm Street premises.

A traffic examiner recommended that the application should be granted if there were sufficient off-street parking facilities and the vehicles could enter and leave in forward gear.

Granting the application for Green Lane, but refusing to authorise the Farm Lane premises, the Deputy TC said that having visited the latter site, he did not believe that three vehicles could be taken into and out of the premises in forward gear. He considered that would lead to a great deal of on-street manoeuvring at the entrance, which he was not going to allow. In addition, because of the proximity of the site to residential property, he felt there was inevitably going to be environmental nuisance, having heard evidence of both noise and pollution.

For the firm, Gareth Patterson argued that the Deputy TC had failed to take account of the evidence of those who supported its use of the premises, Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said the Deputy TC had been entitled to consider opposing evidence and to form his own view. The issue was very much a matter of impression and they felt the Deputy TC had been entitled to make the findings that he had.


comments powered by Disqus