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 
Council's attempts to block licence fails
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN OPERATOR which paid a council £40,000 for a Lawful Usc Certificate, only to have the use of its site opposed by the same council.has finally had its licence confirmed. The application for a two-vehicle/twotrailer licence by Chobham-based Ripley & Willis has been confirmed by South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps, despite opposition from Surrey County Council.
The council had appealed against the TC's original decision to grant the application and the Transport Tribunal had directed him to reconsider the environmental and safety issues surrounding the entrance to the operating centre (CM 26 May).
In 2002 Derek Willis and John Ripley had bought a site at Staple Hill Road which lay within Chobham Common next to a National Nature Reserve, a Site of Specific Scientific Interest and a Special Protection Area. In 1994 a Certificate of Lawful Use was granted to the site for various uses — before buying it the partners obtained a Deed of Grant from the County Council authorising the use of the access by any vehicle for any of the purposes in the Lawful Use Certificate. They paid the council £40,000 for this certificate — but their subsequent application for an operator's licence for two vehicles and two trailers was opposed by the County Council and Surrey Heath Borough Council.
However. the TC granted the licence, subject to a number of conditions and undertakings (CM 23 September 2004).
Indicating that he could see no reason to vary his decision, the TC said the site was used for the storage of secondhand HGVs awaiting sale; for the parking of nine coaches; by a car repairing firm; and as a breaker's yard. He considered the parking of two additional vehicles and trailers would not cause any materially adverse effect on the surrounding area.
Given the large number and size of vehicles passing along the access to and from the site, he was satisfied that the passage of two additional vehicles and trailers on the number of limited journeys he had permitted, and within the hours he had laid down, would not increase the danger to pedestrians and equestrians beyond that inherent in any vehicle movement.