AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Two's company, but three's a crowd

26th September 1981
Page 8
Page 8, 26th September 1981 — Two's company, but three's a crowd
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?

NO OPERATORS who operate from the same premises have been yen licences for 12 months but a third had its renewal application fused after West Midlands Licensing Authority Arthur Crabtree tard that two local authorities envisaged taking planning enforceent action against the use of the premises.

George Taylor of Birmingham id sought to renew his stenird national licence for five hicles and three trailers, an inease of two vehicles, based at acknell Farm Coleshill.

Coleshill By-Products Ltd had ught a new licence for 21 hicles, following the forma11 of a limited company taking er the licence held by John gg; and F.M. & G. Civil Engi;eri ng Contracts Ltd had ught to renew its licence in ;pea of four vehicles and one iler, an increase of three hides.

Vorth Warwickshire Borough Council, in the Taylor case, said it was concerned about the multiplicity of uses at the farm and it was likely that enforcement action would be taken against the unauthorised uses as it was not satisfied with conditions at the premises.

For Mr Taylor, Norman Carless said that five years ago the Council had objected to Mr Taylor's licence and then withdrew its objection. It was too late in the day to say now it was contemplating enforcement action, he stated.

The LA said that five years ago the licence was granted on condition that the operating centre would be Mr Taylor's home address and that only one vehicle would be parked at the farm. A variation application was made in 1979 for three vehicles and one trailer, with the farm being specified as the place where the vehicle would be parked.

Michael Habgood, an engineer with the West Midlands County Council, said the farm was an agricultural holding lying in both the North Warwickshire and So lihull Council areas. Both authorities had resolved to take enforcement action and the delay had been caused by an inability to obtain satisfactory information about the users and the uses.

Granting renewal for one year, Mr Crabtree said that would give time for the situation to be sorted out and he expressed the hope that the local authorities would get on with it. He said that he could not approve an operating centre which had a limited life.

He made a similar decision in respect of Coleshill By-Products Ltd after hearing that Mr Pegg had been at the farm for seven years.

S.M. & G. Civil Engineering failed to appear, and Mr Crabtree refused its application until such time as it attended.


comments powered by Disqus