PED Plant Limited v Harrogate Borough Council

An operating centre for a goods vehicle operator’s licence must be both available and suitable under section 13C(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. Where a substantial unresolved planning dispute concerns whether the proposed use is lawful, and enforcement action is indicated, a Traffic Commissioner may properly find that the site is not available.

A Traffic Commissioner should not ordinarily determine technical planning or property-law disputes. Those disputes should be resolved through the appropriate planning processes. On appeal, the appellant must show that the Commissioner’s reasoning or application of law required a different conclusion, rather than merely that another view was possible.

PED Plant Limited applied for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence using land at Tarran Barn Cottage as its operating centre. The land benefited from a certificate of lawful use permitting, among other matters, storage of commercial or civil-engineering vehicles and building materials.

Harrogate Borough Council objected. It maintained that operating a goods vehicle centre required further planning permission and indicated that enforcement action could follow. The Traffic Commissioner refused the application because he could not be satisfied that the site was available as an operating centre while that planning dispute remained unresolved.

The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal. It challenged the validity of the objection, the Commissioner’s reasons and impartiality, and principally contended that the certificate already authorised the proposed use. The central issue was whether the Commissioner had lawfully treated the unresolved planning dispute as preventing satisfaction of the statutory availability requirement.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Traffic Commissioner made no error of law in refusing the restricted licence. Section 13C(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 required the proposed operating centre to be available as well as suitable.

2. The Council’s objection raised a real and unresolved dispute about whether the land could lawfully be used as an operating centre. Its indication that planning enforcement action would be taken was directly relevant to availability. The Commissioner was therefore entitled, and in law could not viably have done otherwise, to conclude that the site was not shown to be available.

3. A Traffic Commissioner should not ordinarily adjudicate on substantial planning, land-law or similar technical disputes concerning the lawful use of a proposed operating centre. The authorities supported that approach. It was rational and lawful for the Commissioner not to second-guess the outcome of planning proceedings and instead to leave the dispute to the planning machinery.

4. The procedural defects alleged in the Council’s objection did not assist the appellant. The Commissioner could infer exceptional circumstances for treating the objection as duly made under section 12(8). In any event, section 13 required the Commissioner to consider for himself whether the requirements of section 13C were met, including availability, on the material before him.

5. The Commissioner’s concise reasons adequately identified the decisive issue. The allegation of bias was unsupported: an informed and independent observer would have no basis to perceive bias merely because the Commissioner decided against the appellant.

6. The Tribunal noted that a future planning application might warrant balanced and flexible consideration, but made clear that it was not for the Tribunal to suggest its outcome.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal from the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 21 January 2021 refusing a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence.
• Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England Traffic Area: refused the application because the proposed operating centre was not shown to be available while the planning dispute remained unresolved.