1The applicant applied for authority to operate four vehicles and two trailers from a six-acre site located beyond a residential suburb. Following a delay of over a year, the application was called to a Preliminary Hearing after the local authority objected to the proposed operating centre.
The objection was advanced on the basis that:
• the site was located within Green Belt and Flood Plain land; and
• the operating centre would have a detrimental effect on residential amenity.
On the date of the hearing, the local authority produced a further list of proposed requirements and sought an adjournment in order to consider the applicants response.
Carolyn Evans successfully resisted the adjournment application on the basis that:
• the objections largely related to planning considerations which fell outside the Traffic Commissioner’s jurisdiction;
• no local residents had lodged representations in response to the advertisement of the application;
• there was an existing operating centre nearby with a greater vehicle authority and fewer conditions attached; and
• further delay would not assist the determination of the case as the objection reflected a misunderstanding of the Commissioner’s powers in relation to operating centres.
The Traffic Commissioner was taken to the relevant sections of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance on Operating Centres, including paragraph 57, which confirms that a Commissioner cannot refuse an application on the basis of the suitability of the public highway.
The application for an adjournment was refused and the Traffic Commissioner indicated that she was minded to grant the application subject to evidence that remedial works had been completed in relation to the access route to the parking area.
