AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Unjust and unfair

22nd October 1983
Page 40
Page 40, 22nd October 1983 — Unjust and unfair
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?

could press for

-npensation for hauliers npelled to move base. But r best bet is to persuade r Minister that proposed icensing changes are itrary to concepts of fish justice, argues Ralph rpper IE QUESTION of adequate vensation for operators rered to find alternative mises as a result of environntal objection" is being sed again by the Road Jlage Association in its :ussions with the Department Transport on the intended nges in operators' licensing. is easy to pour scorn on this nterjecting: what a hope? For positive move would need iamentary approval, requirthe prior assent of both the met and the Treasury. With Government wanting to cut (On public expenditure, it is kely that the very unpopular ustry of lorry operating 'Id receive the slightest symty for receiving a pennyth of compensation.

at is not the point. For it to raised again by the RHA Iws that an increasing iber of operators are beginto realise what serious resions the new regulations impose. By bringing this to lotice of the Department and iolas Ridley, the Minister, it s to establish how harsh the controls on transport may prove to be.

ie only result that can be ad for is that the Minister be persuaded to decide that present draft regulations are ir and contrary to British :epts of justice and fair ing, and that they should .1r be substantially modified ithdrawn.

le problem will not be fined to those operators (ing to find alternative uses. There will be a much ir coverage of operators re serious hardship will $ worth quoting in full from draft regulations to set out 'ull extent of the conditions h the Licensing Authority impose:

(a) number, type, weight and size of motor vehicles or trailers which may at any one time be at an operating centre for any of the following purposes:

iloading and unloading;

ii maintenance; iii instructions being given to the driver;

iv parking;

(b) parking arrangements at or in the vicinity of the centre;

(c) times when any of the following operations may be carried out:

i loading and unloading, maintenance or movement of any vehicle or trailer; ii instructing the driver; (d) access to and egress from the centre;

(e) nature of the business to be carried on, including the type of goods or burden to be taken to, stored or otherwise dealt with at, or removed from the centre.

Every time any item in this long list is stipulated on a licence, the value of the property is correspondingly reduced. I cannot stress too greatly how serious is this prospect. The only fair conclusion is that there should be a proper measure of compensation every time an LA imposes a condition, even though the prospect of persuading the Government to pay up is extremely remote.

Operators have started to realise how they may be victimised. Here are a few examples: A South Midlands firm bought a property which had an existing planning consent for "plant hire". When this was granted 12 years ago, the only plant envisaged was small items such as compressors and electrical generators. The new owner decided to introduce bulldozers, JCBs and the like. The planning authority had to accept that these were properly within the scope of plant hire, so it could not stop this alteration. But nearby residents became exceedingly unhappy.

The only proper course is for the planning authority to withdraw its former consent and thereupon pay the proper compensation under the Town and Country Planning Act. That would be too expensive.

The planning authority has already been presenting objec tions against the operator's licence, but so far with little success because LAs have been precluded from admitting environmental and planning considerations.

When the new regulations become operative, that planning authority will have an open charter to press for restrictions on that operating centre, presenting its case at public inquiries and then exercising its full rights of appeal. Even if the planning authority is turned down at both stages, the operator will have to face all the attendant costs involved.

The planning authorities are being provided with this second machinery of attack. If they should succeed in a case like this, is there not a serious case for compensation?

A South Coast operator is afraid that a councillor, who lives nearby, may be eager to seize the new opportunities afforded by the impending regu.1ations. The only exit route, by reason of one-way working in the road pattern, is through a residential street of terrace houses on both sides. This depot has been located here for more than 50 years and comprises a sort of industrial zone, being part and parcel of railway land.

Inevitably, residents have complained about the lorries which necessarily have to pass their front doors. On planning grounds, there is little that can be done, except to buy out the premises at enormous cost, a procedure quite unthinkable.

The councillor has been circularising residents to concert action for changes in the route pattern, but there is no easy solution in that direction. The operator fears it is only a short jump for the councillor to organise a mass of representations when the next licence application comes forward.

Under the proposed new regulations, seeing that there will be no material change in the use of the operating centre, the LA cannot refuse to grant the renewal. But there is nothing in the regulations to prevent him imposing "conditions" on some of the aspects previously quoted. While these conditions may not, in the first instance, be terribly restric tive, they must nevertheless, lessen the flexibility of the use of the premises and hence their value.

If this should come about and conditions are imposed, is there not a case for compensation, seeing that the local planning authority is escaping payment under Town and Country Planning?

A South Buckinghamshire operator retains his original yard, going back to 1905, although all his operations are carried out at a new depot not far away. The new depot is the place from which the vehicles are controlled, so that is his present operating centre for his licence. But the original yard is still used for parking some of the fleet, The first point to note is that, as some vehicles are "kept" at the old yard, he will need to obtain a separate licence for that yard when the new regulations come into effect. As this is a new operating centre, it will, as a matter of law, be excluded from the special clause in the Act concerning renewals of existing licences.

A considerable housing estate has been built around that original depot in the intervening 75 years. These days, parked cars can cause difficulties for lorries approaching the depot.

This operator considers he is certain to face a batch of objections from these local householders when he has to make this application. So the LA may impose conditions on this new licence, even though this relates to a depot used for transport for this extremely long period. Surely this is a planning issue and should be dealt with under existing planning procedures. Alternatively, it raises an eloquent case for compensation.

The RHA is well justified in presenting its case for compensation.


comments powered by Disqus