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 
Environmental conditions stay
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Kirldees Metropolitan
District Council Pm, and local resi
dents have blocked a bid by Peter Maughan Transport to free itself from environmental conditions on its Toftshaw Lane, Bradford depot.
Maughan holds a licence for 60 vehicles in the Western Traffic Area. Six are based at Toftshaw Lane, and a further six vehicles and four trailers at the premises of its major customer in Bradford, motor component manufacturer Hepworth & Grandage.
The company was seeking the removal of conditions at Toftshaw Lane restricting the times between which authorised vehicles could move and be maintained. In particular, it wanted vehicles to leave as early as 04:00hrs, and to work on Saturday afternoons and Sundays.
For Maughan, Stephen Kirkbright said delivery times were critical as motor manufacturers carried very small stocks of components. The requirements of Hepworth & Grandage were such that it would be impossible to continue operating from Toftshaw Lane under the present conditions.
He argued that the increased environmental impact would be minimal, as over the past two years traffic along Toftshaw Lane had increased.
Kirkbright said that Bristolbased vehicles and those kept at the Neville Street premises of Hepworth & Grandage could already use Toftshaw Lane at any time of the day or night — but North Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority John Hampton said that was not in the spirit of the conditions.
Terence and Doreen Hocks, who live opposite the site, produced a schedule of alleged breaches of the environmental conditions.
They complained about being woken during the night by vehicles leaving the premises, saying that they and other residents had a right to peace and quiet during the night and on Sundays.
Kirklees said there had been many complaints about the company, and removing the conditions would worsen the residents' lot.
Chairman and managing director Peter Maughan denied there had been any breaches of the conditions but there had been a tremendous increase in the components the company had to deliver. It was on call 24 hours a day and if the condition remained unaltered it would cause a lot of strain. Vehicles would have to be left on the road in laybys to cope with the Hepworth 8/ Grandage work. Completing the required maintenance work was also difficult within the time limits laid down.
Refusing the application, Hampton said that in 1987 Maughan had readily consented to the conditions to minimise the adverse effects of the company's operations. He was not satisfied a need had been shown for their removal or modification.
Neither was he satisfied that the company could not modify its operations to keep within the conditions.
The benefit of the conditions might not be large, but he was satisfied that their removal would strip away the quality of life that the residents prized.