News

Neighbours of a rural haulier have failed in their bid to have action tacken against the firm's licence because of concerns over its operating centre. The complaints were against the use of the base of Nottinghamshire-based Charles Brightmore and John Board, trading as C Brightmore Transport. The partners held a licence for four vehicles and six trailers based at Manor Farm, Little Carlton, near Newark, and had applied for an additional two vehicles and two trailers. They were called before North  Eastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Patrick Mulvenna following complaints from three neighbouring residents

The DTC said that the operating centre was part of a large arable farm. It was accessed by a relatively narrow public highway, which is about 260 metres in length. The condition of the access road is extremely poor with many potholes. The complaints alleged that the access road was unsuitable for use by large vehicles, giving rise to noise, dirt and dust nuisance. Second, the use of the vehicles at unsocial hours presented an unacceptable intrusion into the quiet enjoyment of their properties. Brightmore said that the firm now only had three vehicles in its possession, having had a change of contractual commitments. Consequently, the firm was withdrawing the application for the additional vehicles and trailers. The farm was accessed by a large number of visiting vehicles and agricultural machinery 24 hours a day.

The DTC said there was no evidence that any problem  was caused by the firm's vehicles and trailers being kept at the site. He was satisfied that the use of the access road had the potential effect of causing adverse environmental conditions for the complainants. However, although the condition of the access road was a significant contributory factor, as a public highway, it was the responsibility of the local highway authority. The withdrawal of the firm's vehicles would have a minimal effect.

---

The road was to blame not the haulier

The DTC found that the source of the complaints was the state of the road, rather than the use of the operating centre. He concluded that action against the licence would have a disproportionate impact on the firm when weighed against any benefit to the complainants.