Salesman is banned
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LICENCE application by a driver/salesman working under franise from Snap-on Tools Ltd, selling to garages and mechanics )m a mobile shop, has been refused by the Yorkshire Deputy r;ensing Authority N. F. Moody following an objection from the tuth Yorkshire County Council.
n September, Yorkshire LA aj-Gen John Carpenter 3ntecl two similar applications spite objections from the ast Yorkshire County Council er he considered that the apcants' homes were suitable as orating centres. (CM Sep-nber 19).
Vlr Moody, in his decision re;ing the application for a onehide restricted licence by fly Brown, of Woodend Avee, Cubley, Penistone, said that found that Mr Brown's home )s suitable as an operating ntre.
But, in the light of evidence )m the county council that it
taking planning enforceant action, it would not be ailable to Mr Brown, and he 3s driven to the conclusion
that he did not have a lawful operating Centre.
In evidence, Mr Brown said it was necessary to keep the van at his home for security reasons, the vehicle and contents being worth around £30,000. He had widened and strengthened his drive, and improved the access.
His neighbours had no objection to him keeping it at his home. The vehicle was smaller than a caravan, and was about the same size as a mobile home.
Questioned by Mrs Jan Andrews for the county council, Mr Brown said he had understood that he did not require planning permission for the work he had carried out.
He agreed that the vehicle had to be reversed into the driveway. Its gross weight was around five tons. Dennis Wilson, area planning officer of Barnsley Borough Council, said he had made strenuous efforts to explain to Mr Brown the need for planning permission. In September, the county engineer outlined his strong objections to the application on road safety grounds.
Mr Brown had to drive past his house and then reverse blind towards a road junction on a steep slope. The manoeuvre could not be accomplished without taking up the whole of the carriageway and in his view the vehicle would have to mount the kerb.
The council had authorised enforcement action and the first steps were already in train.
In reply to Mr Brown, Mr Wilson said planning permission was required because there had been a material change of use as a haulage vehicle, albeit a specialised one, was being operated from residential property. It was highly unlikely that any planning application would be granted.
Mr Brown said the council was trying to make life difficult for him. He intended to submit a planning application.
It was impossible to park the vehicle elsewhere from the security point of view and if he could not park it at his home he would have to go out of business.