Park Logisitics - Creating Supply Chain Solutions

Park Logistics - Creating supply Chain Solutions

Creating Supply Chain Solutions
Warehousing - Distribution - Fulfilment - Co-Pack

Phone: 0115 940 3332

Email :

Restricted O-licence appeal fails

  • 23 April 2014
  • By Roger Brown

Karl Dyson and Brian Dyson, who had their restricted O-licence application rejected on environmental grounds, have lost an appeal against the decision.

In a written decision following an appeal hearing in London in March, upper tribunal judge Jacqueline Beech upheld the decision of Patrick Mulvenna, deputy traffic commissioner for the North West, made in November 2013.

The Dysons submitted an application for a restricted O-licence authorising one vehicle, described as a 21,000kg car transporter, in December 2012. This would be used for their farming and Land Rover renovation/rebuild business at Oakfield Farm, Threaphurst Lane, Hazel Grove, Stockport.

However, the application was opposed by neighbours Gerard Daring and Geoffrey Hindle. Daring, with a house at the junction of Threaphurst Lane and the access track, accepted that the Land Rover business did not cause a nuisance. The proposed access to the operating centre was over a track belonging to him and his brother Alan, which was accessed from Threaphurst Lane.

However, he told the TC a double-decked car transporter was an unsuitable vehicle for the track, which included no passing places save for a private driveway. He considered that the use of the vehicle would be dangerous and would cause noise disruption.

Likewise, Hindle complained that the track was not suitable for a double-decked vehicle. It would pass within inches of his wall, the track being approximately 9ft wide at that point, and there was a great risk of damage to it.

According to Hindle, reversing the vehicle would be difficult and there were no passing places. He added that the track was used extensively for recreational purposes and the use of the vehicle would inevitably result in clashes between it and recreational users of the track.

The public inquiry took place in November 2013, after the TC carried out an inspection of the access track the week before.

On appeal Brian Dyson said he had always had a good relationship with his neighbours. However, he said, everything changed when there was mention of an operating centre, and Daring and Hindle had misunderstood what this meant.

In Dyson’s view, the vehicle would reduce the overall number of movements in and out of the operating centre, thus reducing the noise and disturbance, the car transporter being a slower and less noisy vehicle than a Land Rover with a trailer.

The Dysons wished to reduce their transport costs and no account had been taken of that. They said the DTC should have granted the application with strict conditions – similar to those imposed on the interim licence – in line with the opinion of a DVSA traffic examiner.

However, Judge Beech said: “We are satisfied that the way in which the deputy TC dealt with the public inquiry and the issues which arose out of it cannot be impugned. The tribunal will always be slow to interfere with findings concerning the credibility, demeanour and truthfulness of witnesses and the evidence of the representors (both oral and in writing) was largely unchallenged.”






/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;


Article source: