Firm launched without licence
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
tris A company
based in Staines, started up without a licence, was refused a licence by the South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps, on the grounds that it is unfit to hold one.
Euro Construction Scaffolding had applied for a licence for three vehicles based at Moor Lana, Staines. The application was opposed by Spelthorne Borough Council and there were representations from 54 neighbouring residents.
The residents were concerned about the destruction of a rural road, a lack of footpaths and dangerous approaches with sharp bends.
They protested that the railway bridge on the other side of the M25 was too narrow for a truck and a car to pass and large trucks were daunting for pedestrians and horses. They were disturbed by the seven-day operation and were worried at the prospect of additional traffic. They believed that the company had been operating two vehicles since November 1999.
A disabled resident said that he had to use an electric chair in Moor Lane and he was regularly worried by the speed and presence of large lorries.
For the company, Philip Yates pointed out that the Moor Lane site was already authorised as an operating centre for two vehicles to the associated Richardson Roofing and there was more than enough space for five vehicles. He maintained that noise from the vehicles would be drowned out by noise from the M25.
Asked why vehicles had been knowingly operated without a licence since November, director George Richardson replied: 'These things happen.'
He said that it had been a mishap and that he had assumed that if they had a vehicle they would get a licence if they applied for one. He claimed that he was unaware that the company had been breaking the law.
Refusing the application, the TC said Richardson was a director of another company with an 0-licence and should have known that the operation of the company's vehicles should not have commenced until a licence had been granted.
The TC was concerned that Richardson did not feel that the company's failure to observe the law was of any real consequence. Richardson was not a new and innocent entry into the HGV field and he was satisfied the vehicles had knowingly been operated without a licence.
Commenting on the borough council's failure to attend the pubic inquiry, the TC said that it was unfair to an applicant and unhelpful to representatives if a statutory objector did not attend to produce evidence in support of its objection.