AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Depot's had its chips

5th January 1985
Page 7
Page 7, 5th January 1985 — Depot's had its chips
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?

But West Midland Licensing Authority Ronald Jackson warned that the company could continue to use the premises as a warehouse with vehicles entering and leaving.

Mr Jackson gave the company six weeks to find a new operating centre for its three vehicles and prematurely terminated its licence to expire on January 28.

He had called the company to disciplinary proceedings and, at the same time, he granted an application to change the licence from a restricted one to a standard national.

He considered objections to the use of the present operating centre at Maddock Street, Burslem, from the City of Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire Police and local residents.

The LA said the company had been convicted of carrying for hire or reward with a restricted licence. He had also been informed by the police that the drivers had been parking their vehicles outside their homes overnight.

John Symons, Stoke's principal planning officer, said it had not originally objected to a grant of a licence to the company as it had believed the vehicles would be kept in the warehouse. However, there had been a considerable volume of complaints from residents about the street being blocked by vehicles unloading and loading in the road.

It appears that the company was using its vehicles for gen eral haulage and there was no planning permission for the site to be used as a haulage base. The lack of adequate parking space and the hours of operation meant that the environmental impact was totally unacceptable.

Chief Inspector Graham Jefferies, of the Staffordshire Police said its objection was based on environmental and road safety grounds. The premises were situated in a narrow street of terraced houses.

The company had been frequently warned that it was causing an obstruction.

Vehicles were left in the street and loaded with a fork-lift truck running to and fro. The fire brigade had complained about being unable to get a fire appliance up the street because of one of the company's vehicles being in the way.

The front doors of the houses opened on to the street. There were children and old people in the area and the premises were unsuitable for the use to which they were being put.

Residents complained of being abused by the managing director, Marshall Simpson. They said that private cars in the street had been deliberately blocked in by company vehicles and that one car had been damaged by the fork-lift truck.

On one occasion an ambulance had been unable to gain access. They complained about noise early in the morning and late at night. Mr Simpson •said that the conviction for carrying for hire or reward occurred when the company carried some sacks for one of its potato customers. The change to a standard licence would not lead to any increase in traffic.

For financial reasons, it had to stay at Maddock Street for the moment as it needed to earn enough money to afford to move to new premises.

It had tried to do its best to avoid annoying the residents but since the representations had been made, it had run the business as it ought to be run. For the future it would either move to new premises it was negotiating with the council or a second company which had been formed would take over a transport site and operate the vehicles from its premises, retaining the warehouse in Maddock Street.


comments powered by Disqus