AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Application granted despite lack of planning permission

23rd February 2006
Page 35
Page 35, 23rd February 2006 — Application granted despite lack of planning permission
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?

A TRAFFIC Commissioner refused to become involved in a dispute between a council and an operator when he authorised the firm's move to a new operating centre despite the absence of planning permission.

John Palmer, trading as Palmer Pallets, can now move to a site in Benskins Lane, Romford, London. He has also increased his licence from three vehicles to six vehicles and two trailers after a ruling by SouthEastern and Metropolitan TC Christopher Heaps.

The application was opposed by the London Borough of Havering. It objected on environmental matters affecting housing, planning, the capacity of the site and highway dangers. However, the council accepted the planning history in Benskins Lane was a mess due to a legacy of old enforcement notices that had been difficult to enforce. Palmer's application was granted subject to the conditions that vehicles entered and left in forward gear and were parked within the boundaries of the site.

The TC said there were other operating centres authorised in Benskins Lane, giving a total of 31 vehicles and 15 trailers. He did not consider the lack of planning consent fatal to the application,given the other uses in Benskins Lane that had been authorised by planning consent, those authorised through the passage of time and those that were the subject of enforcement notices. He had taken account of the mixed uses in Bensk ins Lane and the noise and fumes emanating from the nearby M25.There was no evidence of highway dangers and he was satisfied the site was of sufficient size to accommodate the number of vehicles requested.


comments powered by Disqus