1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190 
Orwell allowed to serve the public conditionally
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE OWNERS OF the Orv% ell Crossing Lorry Park in Suffolk have given a cautious welcome to a decision allowing it to continue serving both LG V drivers and the public.
The long fight by park boss Karl Rout to lift a ban on serving the public at the popular site on the Al 4 ended last week when planning inspector Michael Ellison finally allowed the appeal.
However. although Ellison has lifted the restrictions put in place by the Highways Agency (HA) to limit customers, he has imposed several conditions including a ban on advertising the site as anything other than a lorry park and motorists' rest area; also, plans showing designated car and coach parking bays must be approved.
Rout had said that if he lost his appeal the truck drivers' restaurant was in danger of closing due to a loss in trade (CM 10 May).
A dispute between the truck park and the HA erupted after the govei nment agency claimed that permission was only granted for the site to serve truck drivers, not the general public. It feared that the facilities would encourage more people to use the congested A14.
Ellison says: "I accept that it is not reasonable to seek to exclude from use of the appeal premises car drivers or coach drivers, who are perfectly proper users of the A14 as a strategic route, who wish to take advantage of the facilities at the appeal site as a service area. Preventing them doing so would have no impact on the overall level of traffic on the A14.
"Given that conclusion, and having regard to my conclusion that conditions 2 and 5 are not necessary or reasonable in the interests of amenity and the protection of the local environment, I agree with the appellants that the conditions cannot be retained in their existing form, and that the appeal must therefore be allowed."