Hymas objectors silenced after Glicence confusion
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NORTH Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority Norman Moody refused to hear objections when Albert Hymas sought renewal of its interim:ional licence for 26 vehicles Ind 28 trailers because a local nithority and members of the Dublic had failed to comply with the regulations concernrig objections and representa:ions on environmental 4rounds.
The company successfully ;ained renewal at its two iperating centres, one at (illinghall and the other at -larrogate. 'Ellis was despite he application being opposed iy Harrogate Borough Counil and representations from 1 local residents.
Submitting that the council lad not complied with the re;ulations, Stephen Kirkbright Or the company said that the pplication was originally ,ublished by the Licensing kuthority on February 6. But Fiat publication only specified as the operating entre.
On March 7 the council ;rote to the LA, saying that had seen a copy of the Dmpany's newspaper adversement in December and it ow wished to oppose both perating centres. A copy of iat letter was not sent to the _impany.
Following that letter, the A decided to re-publish the pplication on April 3, )ecifying both operating :tures. The council wrote to te LA on April 23, saying tat it wished to object. gain, it never sent a copy to ie company.
Quoting recent '1.ransport ribunal decisions, Mr irkbright said the council id clearly not complied with
the regulations because it had not served notice on the company. The first publication of the application by the LA had been null and void as it had not properly specified the operating centres.
As the company had been at its present premises since after World War Two and because it was dealing with the local council, it could not be said that there were any exceptional circumstances which would enable the council to be heard, he said.
For the council Gillian Cooper agreed that it had not complied with the regulations. However, she argued that there were exceptional circumstances on three grounds.
The first was that the council had been misled by the original publication. Also, people were not yet familiar with this new legislation and there was the nature of the objection itself, she argued.
Ruling that there was no valid objection, the DLA said he was not satisfied that there were any exceptional circumstances.
01 the representatives from local residents, only one from a Mr Sharp was valid and he was not present. The other 10 had failed to serve notice on the company within the required time. The same people. however, had complied with the regulations in making representations against the renewal of a twovehicle licence held by C. Margolis (Harrogate) from the same I [arrogate premises.
They gave evidence about the large number of heavy vehicles using the premises and complained about dist urban ce, vibration and damage to pavements and kerbs. They suggested that the size of the vehicles operated by the company should be restricted to 16 tons.
Mr Kirkbright said that in addition to Margolis and HyInas, W. H. Smith and Wineways also had warehouses on the site with large vehicles using the same entrance and exit — although these two companies did not base any vehicles there.
He said that the residents were really complaining about the use of the premises rather than about their suitability as an operating centre for the vehicles authorised to Margolis.
It would be wrong to restrict the size of two vehicles which represent about one per cent of the traffic moving through the entrance and exit. And there had been no objection from the police or the highway authority, he said.
The DLA renewed both licences without restrictions.