Decision

Decision for Heacham Holidays Ltd

Published 15 April 2024

0.1 EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

2. PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN CAMBRIDGE ON 28 SEPTEMBER 2023 

3. OPERATOR: HEACHAM HOLIDAYS LTD (OF1111750)

4. Background

Heacham Holidays Ltd holds a standard national goods vehicles licence (OF1111750) for three vehicles and three trailers. The licence (originally a restricted one) was granted in 2012. The authorised operating centre is at Long Acres Caravan Park, South Beach Road, Kings Lynn PE31 7BA. The directors of the company are Stephen, Estelle, Michael and Elizabeth Plumb. The transport manager is Shane Marrows.

The operating centre can be accessed by HGVs either:

• from South Beach Road through the caravan park owned by the company, or

• from Folgate Road along a bridleway (“Fenway”) and then along a road constructed by the company from the bridleway across fields to the operating centre.  

In 2016 a complaint was received about the company’s HGVs driving along Fenway. Road safety and environmental concerns were raised, as well as the legality of the use of Fenway by HGVs. In 2017 the traffic commissioner reviewed the licence: the result of this review was that a condition was imposed on the licence under which vehicles and trailers were only permitted to use the Fenway access route on Mondays to Fridays between the hours of 0700 and 1800.

5. Variation application

In February 2022 the company applied for an increase in authority to ten vehicles and 12 trailers and to vary the condition relating to operating hours so that movements would be permitted between 0500 and 2100 hours on Mondays to Fridays and between 0600 and 1500 hours on Saturdays. The company offered to limit vehicle movements to six outgoing movements between 0500 and 0700 hours each day from Monday to Friday and between 0600 and 0800 hours on Saturday; and six incoming movements between 1800 and 2100 each day from Monday to Friday and between 1300 and 1500 hours on Saturday.

The application attracted seven valid representations against it by persons living in the vicinity. All the representations came from residents of the group of houses on Fenway close to the junction with Folgate Road. They referred to being woken at unsocial hours by the company’s vehicles and to being affected by noise, smell, visual intrusion, dust and vibration as the vehicles passed within as little as seven metres of their homes.

A valid objection was received from Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. The council stated that:

• the operating centre site did not have planning permission for use as a haulage depot;

• Fenway was a restricted byway and unsuitable for vehicular traffic;

• the access road from Fenway across the fields to the operating centre had been constructed by Heacham Holidays Ltd in 2016 without planning permission;

• movement of HGVs was already causing significant disturbance to residents: the proposed increase would cause unacceptable harm to residents’ amenity.   

Following the opposition to the application described above, Heacham Holidays Ltd indicated that it would be prepared to reduce the increase requested to five vehicles and six trailers. It maintained its desire for wider hours of operation as set out above.

6. Traffic examiner report

In the light of the objection and representations received, it was decided to hold a public inquiry. This was originally scheduled to take place in October 2022 but in the event it was delayed when a deputy traffic commissioner requested a further visit to the site by a DVSA traffic examiner (one such visit had previously taken place in 2017 to inform the traffic commissioner’s review of the licence).

Traffic examiner Hannah Prem duly visited the site on 26 January 2023. Her report noted that Fenway’s surface was mostly tarmac to a good standard, although there was degradation and potholes outside the residents’ houses close to where Fenway met the public road network at Folgate Road. Fenway was 3 metres wide on most of its length, insufficient to allow two HGVs to pass, although there was a passing place. The operating centre itself was at some distance from the residents’ houses and screened by trees. She concluded that the site was safe and suitable for operation. Her main concern was the quality of the road surface outside the houses on Fenway, but she noted that the company had offered to pay towards the upkeep of that section.

TE Prem’s report was challenged by the representors who expressed disappointment that she had not commented on the possible impact of the increased number of vehicles on residential amenity or on the safety of other users of Fenway such as horse riders and walkers. Nor had she appeared to take into consideration the fact that Fenway was a restricted byway.

7. Public inquiry

7.1 Deputy traffic commissioner visit

The public inquiry was eventually called for 28 September 2023. On 27 September 2023 I visited the site myself. I noted that the surface of Fenway outside the representors’ houses appeared to have been recently repaired. I drove along Fenway to the junction with the company’s gravel road across its fields and noted that a dog walker had to step off the metalled surface of Fenway in order to allow my car to pass. I saw evidence of a significant number of horses being kept in the fields adjoining Fenway. I did not visit the operating centre itself as there was no indication that it was insufficient to hold the number of vehicles proposed or that the actual operating centre (rather than traffic between it and the public highway) constituted an environmental disturbance.

7.2 Advance submissions and other evidence

The public inquiry took place in Cambridge on 28 September 2023. As well as the inquiry bundle, I was in possession of several videos sent in by one of the representors. Some of the footage seemed to relate to vehicles which were outside the scope of operator licensing or which were not obviously vehicles operated by Heacham Holidays Ltd. Other videos were more relevant: one appeared to show the driver of one of Heacham’s HGVs getting out of his cab and shaking his fist at a motorist who he judged had not reversed quickly enough to allow the HGV to exit Fenway onto Folgate Road. Several videos showed Heacham HGVs swinging across onto the opposite carriageway on Folgate Road in order to be able to turn into Fenway. Another showed a horse box having to reverse blind out of Fenway in order to allow a Heacham HGV to exit Fenway.

I was also in possession of submissions made on the company’s behalf by Richard Dawson of Lincoln House Chambers, for which I was grateful. The submissions:

• rehearsed the proposed relaxed conditions relating to operating hours;

• noted that the TE’s report found no issues with the application to vary the licence;

• noted that the company was committed to keeping Fenway in a good state of repair;

• stated that the harm to residents on Fenway was not unacceptable and was balanced by benefit to residents of the caravan park and South Beach Road who would suffer if the company’s vehicles had to use the alternative access through the caravan park;

• asserted that the date stamp of some of the videos was inaccurate;

• stated that the HGV driver threatening another motorist had been dismissed by the company some weeks before the incident and had only returned in another operator’s vehicle to pick up a low-loader which that other operator had purchased from Heachams;

• asked for the variation application to be granted in full.

7.3 Attendees

Present at the public inquiry were Stephen Plumb, director of Heacham Holidays Ltd, Mitchell Plumb and Shane Marrows (transport manager). The company was represented by Nicola Smith, solicitor from Squire Patton Boggs, and Richard Dawson, counsel. Stuart Ashworth, assistant director of environment and planning was present for Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. The council was legally represented by Timothy Leader, counsel. Traffic examiner manager Liam Ross attended for DVSA, accompanied by traffic examiners John Russell and Alex Tills. Representors attending were Pauline Wotton, Eileen Vokes, Kathy Veasey, Richard Brown, Sarah Tucker, Ian Knight, Carole Curry and Mrs P M Sanderson.

7.4 TC powers

Opening the public inquiry, I outlined to the attendees the scope of the environmental factors I was able to take into account. I explained that I could consider the environmental impact of noise, visual intrusion, vibration and vehicle emissions but only in relation to properties in the vicinity of the operating centre and that the level of impact had to amount to a real interference with the comfort or convenience of living and the enjoyment of property according to the standards of the average person. I could also take into account road safety both at the point where the public highway was accessed from the operating centre and along any other road (in this case Fenway) between that point and the operating centre. I could also consider whether the operating centre was available for use.

7.5 Opening remarks

Richard Dawson opened by noting the details of the relaxation of the environmental conditions relating to operating hours which the operator was requesting. He noted the operator’s willingness to reduce the requested increase to five vehicles and six trailers (instead of the originally applied for ten vehicles and 12 trailers). If this reduced increase could be granted, the operator would be prepared to agree a condition limiting vehicle movements to three exits in the early mornings and three entrances in the evenings (reduced from the originally proposed five exits and five entrances – see paragraph 4 above). Preferable to this would in fact be a weekly limit on movements which would aggregate the total for the week (ie 18 early morning exits and 18 evening returns) and therefore allow for some day to day flexibility.

The main reason for the application was a change in the company’s business model during and since the pandemic. Before the pandemic the company had transported only its own caravans (on a then restricted licence). Because of the fall-off in caravan-related activity during the pandemic the company had had to branch out into transporting goods for others (and had acquired a standard national licence to enable it to do so). The application for the revised conditions was designed to enable Heacham’s HGVs to avoid busy periods and get well clear of the operating centre before school and work traffic started. Mr Dawson acknowledged that the company used to access the operating centre through the caravan park where there were some 150 static caravans. But it had constructed a new access road to Fenway in 2016 so as to avoid causing danger and a nuisance to the caravan park residents and homes on South Beach Road. The Fenway access was “the lesser evil”.

7.6 Evidence of Stephen Plumb

Giving evidence, director Stephen Plumb made the following points:

• during the pandemic he had had to branch out into different activities. He had found that there was a demand for his low loaders (normally used to transport caravans) to transport heavy plant and other outsize loads under Special Types General Orders (STGO). He had also acquired a bulker HGV to carry sugar beet;

• a primary reason for the variation application was a curfew on STGO movements in Hull, where caravans were manufactured, between 0900 and 1000. To get there and away again before the curfew started, vehicles would have to leave the operating centre in Heacham at around 0500;

• currently, if vehicles needed to leave before 0700 they parked up overnight in the mouth of the access to the caravan park from South Beach Road and left from there;

• the proposed Saturday working was needed in order to prepare for the week ahead;

• Fenway was the preferred access route to the operating centre, as use of the alternative access route through the caravan park it would be unsafe for the park’s residents;

• the company would be happy to contribute to the upkeep of Fenway, although he noted that Norfolk County Council had recently filled in the potholes outside the representors’ houses;

• it was not practical to find an alternative operating centre – the company had spent much time and money in building up its current site;

• Fenway already saw a fair amount of traffic with horse boxes, dog walkers’ cars , the company’s own 3.5 tonne vans and Anglian Water HGVs accessing the water treatment plant at the far end of Fenway.

7.7 Evidence of the representors

Representor Sarah Tucker drew attention to Fenway’s status as a restricted byway. Residents and adjoining landowners had private access rights, but that did not give carte blanche to operate HGVs for commercial purposes. HGVs interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of her property through visual intrusion, noise and vibration. The boundary of Fenway was only seven metres from her front door. Pedestrians had to take refuge in her drive in order to let HGVs pass.

Representor Richard Brown expressed concern about the safety of pedestrians and horse riders. Branches had been knocked off trees by HGVs. There was a ditch on one side of Fenway and a hedge on the other – there was nowhere for pedestrians to go to avoid oncoming HGVs.

Representor Ian Knight pointed out that the company was trying to turn what had been a caravan park into an industrial site. Residents of eight out of the ten houses on Fenway were present at the inquiry, showing the strength of feeling. Heacham’s drivers had intimidated residents. Stephen Plumb himself, when he had seen a group of residents conferring in the road had driven down in a lorry blasting the horn and putting two fingers up.

Representor Phyllis Sanderson said that she was 96 years old and had come all the way to the inquiry in Cambridge to make the strength of her feelings known. She was severely disturbed by the noise and rattle of HGVs as they went past her house. Branches of her fir trees had been removed without her consent by Stephen Plumb. On one occasion she had parked her car on Fenway to go into her house and Stephen Plumb had appeared, saying she was blocking access and that he would call the police.

Representor Eileen Vokes owned horses kept on land adjacent to Fenway. There was not enough room for a horse box to pass an HGV on Fenway. Mr Dawson said that the operator could undertake that if its vehicles met horses or walkers on Fenway the vehicles would stop to let them past. Ms Vokes thought that the horses would still be frightened.

7.8 Evidence of the local authority

For Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, Stuart Ashworth said that the impact on residents of starting times for HGV operation before 0700 would be disproportionate and unacceptable. On the question of the lawful use of the land, raised by some representors in written submissions during the course of the application, he said that the site had been a caravan park since the 1940s – this was its established use. The company however did not have planning permission to use the site as a haulage yard. This was unauthorised development, although the Council had not served an enforcement notice. The Council had however served an enforcement notice against the gravel track constructed by the company between Fenway and the operating centre: this notice required the company to cease using the track. In the Council’s view, it would be better for Heacham’s HGVs to enter and leave the operating centre by way of the caravan park: the impact on residents of South Beach Road would be less than on Fenway, because South Beach Road was wider and better maintained than Fenway.

7.9 DVSA

I asked DVSA manager Liam Ross what TE Prem had meant when in her report she had stated that “Fenway is a good access route providing it keeps its length”. Mr Ross was unsure, and unfortunately TE Prem could not attend the inquiry. Mr Ross disagreed with the Council that it would be better to access the operating centre through the caravan park. He accepted that the entrance to Fenway from Folgate Road was “not overly wide” and agreed that the videos showing vehicles having to reverse blind out of Fenway to let outgoing HGVs exit onto Folgate Road was “less than ideal”. Stephen Plumb said that he had the relevant landowner’s permission to cut back the hedge at the junction of Fenway and Folgate Road if need be. This would improve visibility at the junction.

7.10 Legal questions

At this point there was a discussion of the provisions of the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and how these related to the company’s rights of way along Fenway. A reading of these Acts suggested that they extinguished public rights to use mechanically propelled vehicles on restricted byways, leaving only private rights of access to owners of adjoining or adjacent property so far as necessary for the reasonable enjoyment and occupation of their property. There was some discussion of whether the operation of 60 tonne STGO vehicles constituted reasonable enjoyment. The discussion was inconclusive and I asked the legal representatives of both the company and the local authority to produce notes setting out their arguments as to how these Acts did or did not apply, within seven days of the inquiry.

7.11 Further issues

Richard Dawson addressed other instances where it had been suggested that the company might have proceeded without flouting planning permission. These included the use of an area of ground to deposit soil and waste, the replacement of a diesel tank and the establishment of a vehicle wash site. I was satisfied by his explanations and these issues play no further part in this decision.

Mr Dawson added that the company had originally been told verbally by the Council that planning permission was not required for the gravel access track. Since the enforcement notice had been issued, the company had put in a retrospective application for planning permission. This was still under consideration.

7.12 Closing submissions

Mr Dawson said that there needed to be a balancing act which weighed the concerns of the representors on the one hand against the needs of the company and the caravan park residents (plus the residents of South Beach Road) on the other. It was accepted that the company’s application, if granted, would cause some nuisance to the representors. But the balance came firmly down on the side of the company. The nuisance encountered by the representors was not unique: many people living near HGV operating centres suffered from the same sort of environmental issues.

The proposed early morning starts would indeed cause some problems for some. But this needed to be weighed against the alternative: forcing the company to park its vehicles elsewhere overnight would cause difficulties for others. The company might have to open a new operating centre in Hull. The company would find it difficult to park its vehicles at the heavy plant sites of its customers, as the owners of such sites might have safety and security concerns with other operators’ vehicles parking there.

Heacham Holidays Ltd had offered reasonable restrictions on the number of movements at sensitive times of day. But it did need the flexibility offered by early movements in order to avoid butting up against the curfew on STGO movements in Hull. If necessary, additional conditions could be accepted, such as no movement by STGO vehicles before 0700; a speed limit of 5mph on Fenway within 200m of the junction with Folgate Road (ie near the houses of the representors); the operator to keep the hedge at the junction trimmed in order to improve sightlines and make the corner less difficult to negotiate; HGVs to stop when encountering horses or pedestrians on Fenway.

For the council, Timothy Leader said that the company had a choice between causing a nuisance to the residents of the caravan park which it owned, causing a nuisance to the residents of Fenway, or finding an alternative more suitable site. The company’s operation of HGVs was causing significant nuisance to Fenway residents even at the current level of operation, let alone at the proposed level involving both increased numbers of vehicles and increased hours of operation. He was unpersuaded by the company’s argument in favour of being allowed early morning starts. The traffic in the area was no different at 0700 to 0500, so the argument about not clogging up roads at peak hours did not apply. The company had argued that it needed to avoid the 0900-1000 curfew at Hull, but this was not relevant to its sugar beet operation or to its movement of plant. If the company needed the occasional early morning start to pick up a caravan from Hull it could park its vehicle overnight in Hull or in the entrance to the caravan park (as it did currently).

The proposed increased use of Fenway would adversely impact residents, both from an environmental and safety point of view. The council had set aside specific areas for industrial businesses: the Heacham Holidays Ltd site was not one of them.

7.13 Adjournment

At this point I adjourned the inquiry in order to receive the notes on the legal status of Fenway referred to in paragraph 26 above.

7.14 Submissions relating to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

On 5 October 2023 I received a submission from Timothy Leader. I will not attempt to summarise all the detailed and complex arguments he advanced, but in essence he concluded that the company could not benefit from Section 50 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 because a) the operating centre is not adjoining or adjacent to Fenway and b) it is not reasonably necessary to use Fenway to access the operating centre because there is another perfectly usable access through the caravan park. Nor could the company rely on the grant of private access via the enclosure award of 1851 as that award is expressed to benefit the occupiers of the allotments that are numbered on the award map on either side of Fenway. The numbered allotments are each a dominant tenement. None of these allotments extends to or encompasses the land on which the operating centre is situated.

Further, Mr Leader argued that the use of Fenway as an access route by the company had involved a significantly increased flow of HGVs along a narrow, quiet public and private right of way which historically was used mainly by other kinds of traffic (not least because until 2016 there had been no access to the vehicle operating centre or holiday park via Fenway). This increased traffic was wholly incompatible with the historic and intended use of Fenway contemplated by the enclosure award and had interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of Fenway by others entitled to use the byway, and with residents’ enjoyment of their homes.

On 9 October 2023 I received a submission from Richard Dawson. This invited me not to get involved in matters of access and planning permission, citing the senior traffic commissioner’s statutory document no. 4 which states that traffic commissioners cannot and should not become involved with matters of planning law, property law or consent.

In the event that I wished to ignore the senior traffic commissioner’s guidance, Mr Dawson offered views on the legal position regarding the company’s rights of access to Fenway. He considered that the company benefited from private rights of access pursuant to an Inclosure Award, dated 1851. These rights entitle the company to use Fenway as a “Private Carriageway” and “Occupation Road”. There was, therefore, no restriction on vehicular use. As such, the company was not restricted from enjoying these rights by the use of Heavy Goods Vehicles.

Mr Dawson’s note also referred to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. While this extinguished public rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles over restricted byways, this was subject to certain exceptions. The company reserved its right to argue that one or more of these exceptions applied to it. Further, the same Act converted public rights of access into private rights for persons with an interest in land to obtain access to that land. The company also reserved the right to rely on the private access rights created by this Act.

8. Consideration of the issues

8.1 Availability

I am certainly mindful of the senior traffic commissioner’s statutory guidance document no.4 and its statement in paragraph 55 that:

• “traffic commissioners do not have the necessary jurisdiction to seek to adjudicate upon a dispute of a technical nature as to whether a particular use might be lawful or not. Planning law provides the appropriate route for such disputes to be resolved. Traffic commissioners must simply be satisfied that the site is ‘available’ for use as an operating centre.”

But I note that the guidance document goes on to say:

• “if the position is that the applicant has no right of way over the point of access, then it is difficult to see how the operating centre could be available.”

I consider it to be highly arguable that the company does indeed not have a right of way over Fenway. I find Mr Leader’s arguments more persuasive than those of Mr Dawson: it cannot have been the intention of those framing an enclosure award in 1851 to pave the way for unrestricted use of 60 tonne STGO heavy goods vehicles along a restricted byway. The clear intentions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 are to extinguish public rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles and leave in place private rights only insofar as these are necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of property. It is highly questionable whether unrestricted commercial access by 60 tonne HGVs would qualify under that heading, especially when there is an alternative access which does not involve the use of a restricted byway.  

Although I find the arguments of the council’s legal representatives to be more convincing, I recognise that in the end it will be for the courts to determine where the merit lies.

I am not convinced that the company has the necessary rights of way to cover its current operations, let alone the expanded operations applied for (I note that the question does not appear to have been raised in 2017, when the licence was reviewed a year after the gravel access road between the operating centre and Fenway had been constructed). Therefore I am not convinced that the site is in fact available to the operator. But, mindful of Mr Dawson’s strictures, I am stopping short of making a formal finding of unavailability.

Separately, I note that the gravel track the company has constructed between the operating centre and Fenway does not have planning permission, and the council has issued an enforcement order against its use. The fact that the company has applied for planning permission retrospectively does not render the enforcement order invalid in the meantime. But for the moment I stop short of making a finding that the operating centre is unavailable on grounds of lack of planning permission for the gravel track. Of course, if the local authority should refuse the application for retrospective planning permission for the gravel track, the matter would be clearer: in these circumstances access to the operating centre via Fenway would not be available.

8.2 Safety

I have reflected upon the other issues of safety (at the point where HGVs using the operating centre join the public road and between this point and the operating centre) and environmental nuisance caused by HGVs between the public road and the operating centre.

8.3 Safety at the junction of Folgate Road and Fenway

It was clear from the videos presented that articulated HGVs turning left from Folgate Road into Fenway have to swing out onto the oncoming carriageway in order to carry out this manoeuvre, as the bell mouth of Fenway is not nearly wide enough to enable such vehicles to turn into it without doing so. This is the normal direction of approach, as vehicles come to the operating centre from the A149, the only road into Heacham. One video showed that oncoming cars were obliged to stop to allow the HGV to carry out the turning manoeuvre. Other videos showed cars and horseboxes turning into Fenway from Folgate Road having to reverse out again as a Heachams HGV was coming down Fenway towards Folgate Road and there was no room to pass on Fenway itself. The horsebox was obliged to reverse into Folgate Road without a view of what traffic might be approaching on it.

It is clear to me that the point at which vehicles from the operating centre join the public road network poses significant safety problems. I disagree with TE Prem’s assessment that “the visibility at the junction of Fenway/Folgate Road is good”. I note that she visited in January when the foliage at the junction would have been sparser than when I visited in September. Her report did not comment on the safety or practicality of HGVs manoeuvres at the junction: for some reason she chose to focus rather on the junction between the gravel track and Fenway. There is no dispute over the ease of access here. Mr Ross, in his evidence, agree that the videos demonstrated that the access from Folgate Road into Fenway was “less than ideal”. My assessment is that it is very much not ideal. Even at the current level of operation the entrance poses an unacceptable risk to road safety. An increased level of operation would only compound this. The offer by Mr Plumb to keep the hedge at the junction trimmed would mitigate to some extent, but not by nearly enough to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

8.4 Safety of users of Fenway

Fenway is a restricted byway heavily used by walkers and horse riders (a large number of horses are kept in fields adjacent to the byway). There is no pavement alongside Fenway which is about 3 metres wide along most of its length. There is a hedge on one side and a ditch on the other, with a narrow grass verge between the byway and the ditch. Walkers and horse riders must in essence use the metalled surface of the byway. I assess the level of risk to safety posed by mixing up the most vulnerable types of road user with HGVs of 44 to 60 or more tonnes to be unacceptable. Again, the company has offered mitigation measures (a 5 mph speed limit, with vehicles to stop if encountering pedestrians or horse riders) but such mitigation cannot overcome the essential problem of the incompatibility of these different types of traffic. The whole purpose of a restricted byway is to limit as far as possible mechanically propelled vehicular traffic and provide safe use by walkers, cyclists, horse riders etc. I find that the operator’s application would, if granted, pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the other users of Fenway.

8.5 Environmental nuisance

Having visited the site and heard all the evidence, I conclude that serious adverse effects on enjoyment of property come from:

• the visual intrusion to residents as vehicles travel along Fenway past their houses – the video pictures of the passing articulated vehicles were particularly striking;

• the noise levels of vehicles passing close to the house during hours when people might reasonably expect to be undisturbed: ie between 0500 and 0700 hours;

• the vibration caused by the very heavy vehicles passing very close to residents’ properties over what, even after recent repairs, is not a smooth road surface.

I note that the company has offered to restrict the number of outward movements between 0500 and 0700 hours to three each weekday, but noise between these hours, even if only from one to three vehicles, is highly likely to interrupt sleep patterns of residents whose bedrooms are only a few metres from the road surface of Fenway. Once awakened at such an hour, it is extremely difficult to go back to sleep again.

My conclusion is that the increase in number of vehicles and extension of operating hours requested by the company would, if granted even with the undertakings and conditions offered, constitute a real interference with the comfort or convenience of living and the enjoyment of property according to the standards of the average person.

9. Decision

Having concluded that the increased number of vehicles and increased operating hours applied for by the company would constitute an unacceptable risk to the safety of other road users and a real interference with residents’ enjoyment of their property, I am thus refusing the application under Sections 13C(5) and 19(6) of the 1995 Act.

Nicholas Denton

Traffic Commissioner

8 November 2023