Decision for Al1ce Limited (OD2076986)
Source: gov.uk (2025-07-25)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands for Al1ce Limited (OD2076986)

In the West Midlands Traffic Area

Al1ce Limited (OD2076986)

Environmental Public Inquiry held in Birmingham on 10 June 2025

Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

Decision

The application made by Al1ce Limited, under reference OD2076986, for a restricted goods vehicle operator licence to authorise the operation of 10 vehicles and 7 trailers from the proposed operating centres at Stone Arrow Farm, Peopleton, WR10 2DZ is REFUSED under sections 13(5) and 14(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (the “Act”) after making adverse findings under sections 13C(5), 13C(6), 14(2)(a) and 14(2)(b) of the Act.

Background

Al1ce Limited (the “Applicant”) made an application dated 19 September 2024 for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence to authorise 10 vehicles and 7 trailers under reference OD2076986. The proposed operating centre was at Stone Arrow Farm, Peopleton, WR10 2DZ.

The application attracted a significant number of representations to my office from local residents.

Nine of those representations were deemed to be duly made from the papers and were treated as valid representations on environmental grounds.

Due to the interest in the application the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“DVSA”) were asked to undertake a report into the suitability of the proposed operating centre. Traffic Examiner Lisle undertook his investigation into the proposed operating centre on 29 January 2025. He determined that the proposed operating centre was unsuitable for various reasons detailed in his report.

Given the number of duly made representations and given the contents of the report received from Traffic Examiner Lisle I initially proposed to refuse the application and refused to grant an interim licence. The Applicant requested a Public Inquiry and the Applicant was then formally called to a Public Inquiry by letter of 02 May 2025. That calling in letter was sent to the last postal and email correspondence address given to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner by the Applicant.

The calling in letter of 02 May 2025 explained to the Applicant how it could access the electronic bundle of case documents which contained all of the evidence that I would consider at the Public Inquiry.

In the afternoon of Wednesday 04 June I undertook my own site visit (but I did not enter Stone Arrow Farm). In doing so I spent 90 minutes looking at the entrances/exits from Stone Arrow Farm where they first join the public road and I also familiarised myself with the location of the duly made representors in relation to the proposed operating centre.

Public Inquiry on 10 June 2025 at 11am

Several of the duly made representors attended the Public Inquiry. Also in attendance, via video link, was Traffic Examiner Lisle from the DVSA.

The sole director of the Applicant, Mr Peter Brown, did not attend the Public Inquiry. My clerk called the mobile number that my office had been given by Mr Brown several times without success. I waited until 11.20am but neither Mr Brown, nor anyone on his behalf, had attended. I then decided to start the Public Inquiry in his absence.

I took the duly made representations that were before me in the papers as read. I did not have any further questions for the representors who attended the hearing.

I heard from Traffic Examiner Lisle. He read out his report and I then asked him some supplemental questions.

I then concluded the Public Inquiry and reserved my decision to writing.

Burden and Standard of Proof

All applicants bear the legal burden of proof throughout the application process to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that the application meets the minimum statutory requirements in order for it to be granted. The standard of proof is the civil law standard, the balance of probabilities. In other words what is more likely than not to have occurred or would occur.

The DVSA also have the same burden and standard of proof to prove any allegations that they have made.

The duly made representors must also satisfy the same burden and standard of proof to prove that any of the environmental issues they raised would be capable of prejudicially affecting the use or enjoyment of their land.

The Law

The relevant law is contained in sections 13C and 14 of the Act. Section 13C(1), (5) and (6) of the Act state:

“13C.Requirements for standard and restricted licences

(1) The requirements of this section are that it must be possible (taking into account the traffic commissioner’s powers under section 15(3) to issue a licence in terms that differ from those applied for) to issue a licence in relation to which—

…

(b)in the case of a heavy goods vehicle licence, subsections (2) to (6) will apply.

…

(5) A heavy goods vehicle licence must specify at least one place in the traffic area concerned as an operating centre of the licence-holder, and each place so specified must be available and suitable for use as an operating centre of the licence-holder (disregarding any respect in which it may be unsuitable on environmental grounds).

(6)The capacity of the place specified as an operating centre (if there is only one) or both or all of the places so specified taken together (if there are more than one) must be sufficient to provide an operating centre for all the heavy goods vehicles used under the licence.

Section 14(1) and (2) of the Act deals with duly made representations after an application for a new operator’s licence has been made. The section states:

“14 Determinations where objections etc are made on environmental grounds.
- This section applies to any application for a heavy goods vehicle licence in respect of which—
(a)any objection is duly made under section 12(1)(b), or

(b)any representations are duly made under section 12(4).

(2)A traffic commissioner may refuse an application to which this section applies on the ground that, as respects any place which, if the licence were issued, would be an operating centre of the holder of the licence—

(a)the parking of heavy goods vehicles used under the licence at or in the vicinity of the place in question would cause adverse effects on environmental conditions in the vicinity of that place; or

(b)the place in question would be unsuitable for use as an operating centre of the holder of the licence on other environmental grounds.”

Findings of Fact

All of my following findings of fact have been made after applying the correct burden and standard of proof to the evidence that was before me in the Public Inquiry.

The calling in letter to the Applicant dated 02 May 2025 was sent to the last known postal and email correspondence address provided to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner by the Applicant. Neither letter was returned as undelivered. In addition, Mr Brown sole director, was familiar with using VOL as he had used it to communicate with a caseworker (see pages 228 of the bundle onwards).

Relying on the Upper Tribunal appeal case of Philip Drake [2023] UKUT 98 (AAC) I am satisfied that at least one of the calling in letters was delivered to the address to which it was sent and as a result there was good service of that letter. It was then a matter for the Applicant what they decided to do.

After sending out the calling in letter of 02 May 2025 no evidence or submissions were received from the Applicant.

That calling in letter told the Applicant to be at the Public Inquiry 30 minutes before it started; in other words by 10.30am at the latest (see page 6 of the electronic bundle).

That calling in letter warned the Applicant that if they did not attend the Public Inquiry then the case would he heard in their absence (see page 6 of the electronic bundle).

My clerk attempted to call the Applicant on the mobile phone number the Applicant had provided in order to find out where he was. She tried three times to do that but each time no-one answered.

I waited until 11.20am. At that time no-one from the Applicant had attended. In the premises I was satisfied that the Applicant had been properly notified of the hearing, that no request to postpone or adjourn the hearing had been made and I was further satisfied that there was sufficient evidence in the papers before me to reach a fair decision in the absence of the Applicant. There was no persuasive reason to adjourn the Public Inquiry on my own volition; it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed without the Applicant being present.

The evidence of Traffic Examiner Lisle contained in his report (see pages 175-193 of the electronic bundle) had not been challenged by the Applicant. I heard from Traffic Examiner Lisle in oral evidence. His written and oral evidence was credible, cogent and highly persuasive. All of the allegations he made are found to be proven. In particular that:

(a) Both access points to Stone Arrow Farm that are used are unsuitable due to the width of the public road that compromised turning arcs; and

(b) On entering/exiting Stone Arrow Farm, at the point where the entrance/exit first joins the public road, HGVs need to mount the grass verge as the public road is not wide enough to complete a turning arc; and

(c) That is dangerous because it requires crossing the centre of the public road into the path of oncoming traffic as part of the turning arc when attempting to enter Stone Arrow Farm; and

(d) That is dangerous because by mounting the grass verge mud is then dragged onto the public road by the wheels of the HGV; the mud creates a skidding/slipping risk particularly to cyclists and motorcyclists; and

(e) HGVs mounting the verge have caused, and continue to cause, damage to the grass verge; and

(f) There is insufficient parking room for vehicles already at Stone Arrow Farm let alone for any additional vehicles; and

(g) Parking of vehicles within the site at Stone Arrow Farm is on grass/mud with the resulting mud from the site being transferred to the public road by HGVs; and

(h) There were no vehicle wash down facilities at the site (and no evidence was before me to satisfy me that had changed); and

(i) Therefore, the mud from the site that is transferred by HGVs onto the public road creates a danger as a skidding/slipping risk particularly to cyclists and motorcyclists; and

(j) The proposed location for the Applicant’s operating centred was wholly unsuitable.

The Traffic Examiner’s evidence was unequivocal and unchallenged by the Applicant who, in addition, had provided no rebuttal evidence. There is no doubt in my mind from the Traffic Examiner’s evidence before me that proposed operating centre was unsuitable under sections 13C(5) and 13C(6) of the Act because it was more likely than not that what was found by the Traffic Examiner would apply to this Applicant were the application granted.

For the avoidance of any doubt, in relation to where my jurisdiction ends and the jurisdiction of the Highways Authority starts; my jurisdiction includes the locus of where the entrance/exit from any proposed operating centre first joins a public road. My jurisdiction therefore covers all of the proven allegations made by the Traffic Examiner.

Only the Applicant was a party to these proceedings before me. I am unable to mitigate any of the proven allegations made by the Traffic Examiner through conditions to be attached to the licence because I cannot compel the landowner (who is not Mr Brown or the applicant company) to do anything that may amount to sufficient mitigation. I also could not explore any licence conditions with Mr Brown as he had failed to attend the hearing.

The Applicant’s sole director, Mr Brown, had not engaged in the Public Inquiry process and so I could not explore with him in the Public Inquiry any undertakings that he might have offered to me by way of mitigation to the proven allegations made by the Traffic Examiner.

Nine local residents had made duly made representations. Collectively, or individually, they had proven the environmental allegations they had made in relation to noise that would be generated by the use of the Applicant’s vehicles from the proposed operating centre because without the operator attending the Public Inquiry I could not explore the proposed hours of operation with the director. From the papers in the electronic Public Inquiry bundle there is no mention of proposed times and/or days of operation. I therefore could not determine whether anti-social hours of operation were likely to occur or not. Anti-social hours of operation, and the noise generated from operating at those times, would be particularly impactful in the summer months when people often have their bedroom windows open during the night.

I also found as proven the duly made representations about the damage that would be caused to the grass verge by the Applicant’s vehicles entering and exiting the Stone Arrow Farm from the public road and the unsuitability of the entrance/exit to the proposed operating centre where it first joins the public road on environmental grounds as a result.

Repeating paragraphs 30 and 31 above; for the reasons given in those paragraphs I am unable to consider possible conditions and/or undertakings that may sufficiently mitigate the effects on environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed operating centre, or its unsuitability on the other environmental grounds, from the proven allegations made in the duly made representations.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposed operating centre is unsuitable under sections 14(2)(a) and 14(2)(b) of the Act.

Decisions

Having found that the proposed operating centre is unsuitable under sections 13C(5) and/or 13C(6) of the Act, and having further found there are not suitable conditions/undertakings that I could attach to the granting of the operator’s licence to sufficiently mitigate the reasons for my findings under sections 13C(5) and/or 13C(6), this application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence is refused under section 13(5) of the Act. Section 13(5) of the Act makes it a mandatory requirement that I must refuse this application. That section of the Act was not quoted under paragraph 17 above.

Entirely separate to refusing this application under section 13(5) of the Act; having found that the proposed operating centre is unsuitable under sections 14(2)(a) and/or 14(2)(b) of the Act, and having further found there are not suitable conditions/undertakings that I could attach to the granting of the operator’s licence to sufficiently mitigate the reasons for my findings under sections 14(2)(a) and/or 14(2)(b), this application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence is also refused under my discretionary powers pursuant to section 14(2) of the Act because it is proportionate to make that determination from the facts of this case.

Review Of Existing Operators Who Have An Operating Centre At Stone Arrow Farm Specified On Their Operator’s Licence

In light of this decision, markers must now be placed onto the VOL accounts of all operators who have an authorised operating centre at Stone Arrow Farm specified on their operator’s licence so that at the five year licence continuation stage their file, together with a copy of this decision and the DVSA report from Traffic Examiner Lisle, must be placed before the Traffic Commissioner for consideration of whether a review into the suitability of their operating centre is required.

For Any Current And Any Future Application(S) To Specify Stone Arrow Farm As An Operating Centre

For any current or future application(s) to add Stone Arrow Farm as an operating centre no grant of any interim licence under delegated powers can be made and the application must be placed before the Traffic Commissioner together with a copy of this decision and the DVSA report.

Mr M Dorrington The Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands 13 June 2025