The Vehicle Operating Centre (VOC) has been set up on Royds Hall Farm where every one seems to have turned a blind eye to planning rules and regulations . There are many reasons why this centre is grossly unsuitable. More facts have come to light with the applicant indicating he had planning permission in 1994 which is misleading , incorrect and irrelevant
The applicant currently does not have planning Permission ( Change of Use ) and has claimed he has ten years worth of operation on THIS site . We have further investigated and found the operator to have been subject to disciplinary tribunal on violations of his licence
Here is the Letter to the Traffic Commisioner
Dear Sir
As close resident .I make complaint regarding the Vehicle Operating Centre (VOC) located on premises at Royds Hall Farm Reference OB1013783. The vehicle operating yard is shared with a large herd of dairy cattle 50-75 and also the subject of a Public ROW dispute running directly through the yard. ( Map Attached . Public FP 129 ) The proposed yard is directly adjacent to stables where horses and other animals are kept . The Site is located in a conservation area and has high visibility in regard to noise and dust likey to be created. These large vehicles are currently damaging the crude surface which exists on the Private Road owned by Royds Hall and as a result if further detoriation occurs could hinder access for emergency services . Damage to dry stone walling has also occurred
We make reference to the audit chain of correspondence with the Local Authority as Statutory Objector who have written to you in the light of some of the concerns Highlighted . I refer you to the City Highways Officer Mr xxand Mr xx the Senior Highways engineer who referred concerns earlier this year to your office
Royds Hal Lane is a Scheduled Ancient Highway maintained in character .Royds Hall Farm can only be reached by vehicular access routes from movement within the local authority estate , Woodside , such access routes have a weight limit of 3.5 T in the light of the concerns expressed by the previous Headmistress of the Local Primary School located at the bottom of the steep hill slope all routes pass by school or childrens play areas ( Meadway , Fenwick and Lingdale )
Royds Hall Lane is a steep slope with a crude dusty/slippy surface covered with cattle run off and effluent in winter and contains a public right of way and one other moving onto it outside the main Operating Centre on a blind bend. There is also a query regarding a public Right of Way Running directly through and into the Yard FP 129 which is with the ROW team at the moment. There is movement of children to Wyke Manor School and Woodside Primary Schools .The momentum, poor surface and stopping distance on a hill slope site speak for themselves
Adjacent yards and buildings are Scheduled Grade 2 listed buildings including the old manorial court house located in very close proximity in addition to barns , cottages and stables and the Royds Hall Manor itself.Large wagons of £0 T are likely to cause structural damage to any drystone in the area.
We are aware that no COU ( Change Of Use) has been applied for from the local planning and the applicant operating on unsuitable premises and that in the likely event an applicaton is put forward such a centre would fall outside PPG's ( Planning Policy Guidelines ).BH10, EN2, 22, GP2. Substantial noise and dust on a hill top site also mean that the site would be highly visible and detract from the conservation value of the area.
In order to further the application we have submitted a local petition initially of the order of 50 in the short time we have had initially all such people are local and use the amenity value of these commons, however we draw your attention to precluding residents that are not local since the Route is a Public Right of Way and also crosses the site of a proposed Village Green to the North of the Farm adjacent to Fenwick Drive . We therefore urge you to consider these factors in making assessment on the suitability of these premises for a Vehicle Operating Centre, in the light of potential risk or harm .
We also draw attention to the advertising procedures on this application which , yet AGAIN have not been met with the advert placed in a local free paper not delivered on the Woodside and local Estates. Aire Valley or Bradford Target The terms of the notice does not protect those objectors who may not wish to disclose their address to the applicant , and since there is a case of Planning Harassment currently receiving attention I have been asked to submit objections directly to the traffic commissioner and would ask that they are not invalidated and are treated without prejudice
We therefore put it to the Traffic Commissioner that there is a duty of care to act on the basis of concerns that have been given and to make due consideration to revoking the variation on the licence ( alternative premises available in Shipley)
I draw to your attention that as residents in Royds Hall & Cottages , of which Mr and Mrs xx (Cottages) and Mr and Mrs xx express concern these are listed buildings of drystone within 20 yards of the site . Near residents also include Lingdale Road , Fenwick Drive and Meadway . I draw attention to your criteria in respect of objectors and point out that all legitimate users of Rights of Ways would have extremely valid concerns , local primary school and all residents on the Woodside estate by virtue of limited access to the site in regard to movements in a residential area . Current petition stands at 341 signatories. We therefore move that the matter is addressed as that of urgent and with your obligation to meet duty of care . This Public Footpath is used by infants and children moving to and from Wyke Manor School and Woodside Primary School .
Resident In Proximity ( Pettition and Letter to Follow)
Royds Hall Cottages
Royds Hall
Fenwick Drive
Lingdale Road
Meadway
Enclosures
Advert
Map
Reply To The Commisoner On Standing by His decision to Grant Permission
Sir
I have today learnt the substance of your decision in regards to Royds Hall Farm. Having carefully taken advice on this matter we can only conclude that the decision made by the Commissioner is highly questionable and we take a view of negligence and we shall move to demonstrate the same by Judicial review. I would therefore be grateful if the Commisioner would reply in person to the points raised in this letter and clearly confirm that he will not take this matter to Public Enquiry.
It would appear that your decision might have been influenced by Information Given incorrectly by the applicant
I point out Royds Hall Farm has no such planning permission ( COU Change of Use ) as indicated by Mr xx and is located in Green Belt. The application to which he alludes relates to 05/0197/OUT which is located some distance from the VOC, unrelated in any case, and only granted in 2002 out of a non determinant application which, amongst other things likely to be challenged by Judicial Review. For the purpose of clarity I AGAIN include the map indicating clearly such demarcation from which you will note Royds Hall Farm is some distance away.
In your letter dated 09/2005 you allude to further environmental information provided by the applicant which under the Freedom of Information Act we request to be party to ( we are in possession of letter and material dated 11th August 2005 to Mr xx )
Mr xx makes claims that he has a long history of licences at this location I wish to confirm from you what licences have been granted for these premises and at what juncture in time. If Mr xx had such validation then he would not be applying to you for a variation in his licence which I possibly believe was historically revoked because of the concerns of the local headmaster. I am of the understanding that Bradford MDC will be enforcing the issue if he has not applied for planning permission by the 9th October 2005.
I am also of the understanding that the council also made early representation to you and am in possession of correspondence to you indicating the keeping of Mr xx vehicles at this site outside his designated operating centre at an earlier juncture and would now seek to understand why the appropriate procedures where not enacted by the Traffic Commissioner with in fact revoking his licence for operating outside its terms
I draw attention to ROW FP 129 has historically moved down the side of Royds Hall and onward onto Royds Hall Lane. These paths are recorded Public Footpaths and ROW. I draw attention to the public FP 129 opening directly onto the Royds Hall Lane with no pedestrian protection, which in a planning framework would fall outside GP2. FP 129 also moves directly through the farmyard on which the Traffic Commissioner has given approval for a VOC. We have now involved two other external agencies on this matter . In your letter dated the traffic Commissioner has alluded to an Inspection, Under the Freedom of Information Act, we seek, to see a full and formal copy of the Risk Assessment on this site, given the likely involvement of the Health and Safety Executive.
I draw attention to the fact that Royds Hall Lane is In Private Ownership and leads to a Grade 1 listed building of which the owners have clearly objected to the use of The VOC would interfere with the use and enjoyment of their land . Mr xx has aright of access to conduct his farming activity , however without Planning permission his acts in regard to VOC remain unlawful
We are also of the understanding that the City's Highways department have lodged a statutory objection, we should like, under the Freedom of Information Act to see a full copy of this and would seek clarification as to why the Commissioner may have chosen to ignore this.
In your letter dated 7th October 2005 you allude to enough room for vehicles to turn around in the small yard and to avoid the need of reversing onto the Public Footpath. I draw your attention to the parking of the Vehicle not in the main yard but an adjacent Yard. The location of this yard is 20m from 3 listed buildings in a quiet residential hamlet, all residents, of whom have lodged complaint with you regarding damage by vibration and, noise dust and other related activity which you have a duty to consider. We have a number of pieces of Video evidence showing clearly these vehicles reversing on the Public Footpaths in question contrary to your letter dated. Royds hall farm is a high visibility Hill top site located on a very steep slope on an unmetalled road often covered with slurry and or ice from
In regard to the conditions imposed we find these unrealistic in the light of anticipated use of ROW in regard to use by school Children moving toward Woodside School and Wyke Manor. In point of fact we would suggest that they are someone lacking in thought .We would also ask in view of the applicants breech of his Operating licence conditions as to who will monitor such activity to ensure that it is adhered to
In Mr xx letter he has personally alluded to a large amount of information relating to myself. The Judy Woods Save Our Heritage Group is a large group of which we hold circa 2000 signatures in respect of local heritage issues. Judy Woods is located some miles from his farm and the substance of his concerns would seem to one of fiscal gain . Judy Woods Save Our Heritage is a legitimate and democratically run group who seek to protect the environment and the vulnerable therein and have done so through legitimate process
In regard to the process currently adopted by the Traffic Commission, it is our understanding that if we pursue the matter by Judicial Review VOSA may well be placed in a compromising position in addition to substantial loss of Public Confidence particularly in the light of the large unsuitable hillslope which has the potential to mirror the tragedy of Sowerby Bridge.
We are of the understanding that a system which does not place notification on site and for that matter issues licences by default without inspection is a frail one. We are of the belief that it is the Commissioners duty to ensure that the site is suitable for a VOC of which there is no joined up thinking or liaison with the planning authority or requirement for the applicant to demonstrate the appropriate approval from the planning authority thereby saving time, distress and public monies on these matters . We are of the understanding from many planning authorities that no delegated responsibility exists within the system in regard to responding to your dispatches on VOC because of fiscal restriction. We express concern regarding the process of statutory objection which appears to be ineffective.
Pursuant to those matters a system that precludes that of the representor from Tribunal is one, which is contravening the Human Rights Act.
On full consideration the system that operates appears on the surface to be a revenue based exercise with no balanced appraisal or enforcement arm regarding VOC ( Breeches and Siting )
I therefore must advise if we have heard nothing from the traffic Commissioner regarding Public Enquiry on this matter within 3 working days of receipt of this letter we precede accordingly.I remain
Yours Sincerely
The Current Position :
There are two key points regarding VOC 's whilst a Traffic Commisioner can give licence to operate the applicant still has to satisfy apropriate plnning permissions which in this case would be COU ( Change of Use ) . The applicant has not submitted an application which would be subject to numerous PPG ( Policy Guidelines and Restrictions.
Instead the applicant has stated he has operated his VOC for more than 10 years at this location in order to acquire a Certificate of Lawfulness outside the normal Planning Route
We point out that the Farm has only been used of recent regarding PKM Plant lorries and in fact flagged earlier this year to the Traffic Commisioner that he was outside the terms of his licence by keeping his Vehicles on these premises . The applicants assertion that he has therefore lawfuly kept Vehicles on these premises is incorrect
We have noted that the applicant has been the subject of a number of disciplinary tribunals on the site and that Information given to the Traffic Commisioner implying that the VOC Site had Planning Permission was deliberately misleading . The adjacent site 05/0197/OUT only ever achieved permision in 2002 and relates only to a private developemnt outside the Greenbelt boundary and indeed does not include the VOC at the Farm. In any case the granting of licence by the Traffic Commisioner is not dependent on whether the applicant has applied for permission or not . We have higlighted the ad hoc nature to the Traffic Commisioner regarding the issue of licence for VOC without site inspection or indeed Planning Certificate
