Operators refused
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NO Kent companies, Vent Brothers and Pethimore Ltd, of Riggs II Farm, Otterden, Faversham, have each had their applications for )erators' licences, for 10 vehicles and 10 trailers, refused by South!stern Licensing Authority Randall Thronton.
The directors of the cominies, brothers John and Anew Vant, were represented at e inquiry by traffic consultant r M. Birchall.
The applications had been obcted to by Maidstone Borough ouncil and Kent County )nstabulary.
The borough council's objec)n was based on planning .ounds. The proposed operatg centre at Riggs Hill Farm — Ivned by the brothers' father — as not a suitab a place to )erate a transpc t business nce it was in an area of great ndscape value and outstandg natural beauty.
The council had authorised Iforcement action to be taken stop the farm being used as a a nsport depot.
The LA described the serving
13 enforcement notices on irious addresses in the Kent .ea as being ''slike a shotgun" ld he was surprised they had yt hit anybody.
Evidence was given on behalf of the council by enforcement officer Donald Frederick Nichols, who said that the "narrow winding approach roads to the site were quite unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles using them on highway safety grounds and a number of local residents had expressed strong objection largely on account of the traffic problems generated."
The council submitted that the licences be refused or the decision held in abeyance pending the outcome of the enforcement action.
The farm has, in the past, been used as a transport depot by Willshaw Ltd, a transport business operated by the Vent brothers on behalf of its sole director, Geoffrey James Moore, and also used by J & S Contractors, the directors of this company being John and Andrew Vant. Both companies are now in liquidation. The Willshaw Company was the subject of a lengthy inquiry at Maidstone last November. An interim licence was granted at the hearing but later revoked by the LA.
The police objection to the applications was based on the grounds that the Vant brothers were not of good repute. Neither John nor Andrew Vant possess a certificate of professional competence.
Allegations were made at the hearing of illegally operating without an 0-licence by Willshaw Ltd and also by the present applicant companies. This was not disputed at the hearing by John Vent. Three overloading convictions had also been recorded against J & S Contractors.
Police Sergeant Hogben, on behalf of the constabulary, said: "It was safe to say that six summonses against Willshaw had been issued, and more summonses had been applied for."
Andrew Vant had two convictions recorded — speeding in a heavy goods vehicle and having a defective tyre.
Michael Taylor — a witness called by the police — said in evidence that he had been a previous employee of J & S Contractors and that cheques for work done had bounced. He had successfully obtained judgment against the company for £4,090.40, plus £100 costs, but he had now written the money oft The LA reserved his decision at the end of the hearing and this was given in writing at a later date.