Case No. UKUT-00095-(AAC)

17.We are satisfied that this appeal should be allowed because the TC’s decision only authorising the Whitby Sports and Social Centre as an operating centre on the Appellant’s licence was wrong.18.We are satisfied that the TC failed to consider, address or give any or sufficient reasons for deciding that the Appellant’s new residential address was unsuitable or unsafe to be authorised as an operating centre. We also note that the TC does not appear to have conducted a site visit of the Appellant’s new address - his proposed operating centre.19.Further, the reasoning that the TC did rely upon was wrong for the reasons that the Appellant relied upon during oral argument and set out in his grounds of appeal.20.The reference to both vehicles by the TC in the reasoning was not valid and was incorrect - as the Appellant had made clear that he only had the one vehicle at the time of the decision and this was known at the time. The Applicant had sold the other vehicle in June 2021. The TC also stated that it was not impossible to park two vehicles at the Sports and Social Club. This was wrong – the letter from the Sports and Social Club which had previously been received by the TC clearly stated that only one vehicle could be parked there. The club gave the Appellant permission from 15/7/19 to park one minibus in the required space (the size 2 of normal car spaces) and the OTC had previously received a copy of that letter in the post.21.The TC’s reasoning went on to suggest that the Social Club was the obvious choice for the operating centre but it was not the obvious choice. Contrary to the OTC’s reasoning it was not even an option as mentioned earlier - the Appellant had made clear he had given up his second vehicle and parking space at the club. Further, from the Appellant’s business perspective, it made more sense to have his vehicle parked at his own address rather than some distance away.22.Most importantly, the Appellant was correct to submit that the TC had failed to address the suitability and safety of his new residential address to be authorised as an operating centre. This was the real and key issue to be decided by the TC which he failed to do adequately (or at all).23.We are satisfied that the Appellant’s new residential address can safely be authorised as the operating centre on the licence. We are satisfied that it is a quiet residential street with low footfall and low volumes of traffic. We are satisfied that the risk of the Appellant endangering people, vehicles or property when reversing into his parking area / driveway can be safely managed. This is because a) the Appellant is an experienced professional driver with an impeccable safety record who is used to operating in busy city centres; b) there is a dash cam in the vehicle with a reverse camera so, when used together with the vehicle’s rear view mirrors and adequate inspection of the road and pavement, the Appellant will have good visibility when reversing; c) there is a wide entrance to the driveway to his home and the vehicle is 6.9 metres long (many long wheelbase vans are frequently reversed and parked on residential streets and driveways where they do not require licences as they are not carrying passengers for hire or reward); d) there is a low footfall of people and volume of traffic that the Appellant may expect to encounter when reversing at this address; e) there is sufficient room on the Appellant’s drive for daily checks to be performed of the vehicle. Therefore, it would be unnecessary and disproportionate for him to employ a banksman to reverse or to fit reversing bleepers to the vehicle or mirrors on his driveway. 24.Furthermore, there have been no objections from his neighbours to the Appellant’s application. We accept the Appellant’s evidence in his notice of appeal that all risks can be adequately and safely mitigated. We have also had due regard to the photographs and plan the Appellant provided.25.We agree with all that is said by the Appellant that he was previously authorised to operate from his former residential address which presented a higher risk than his current residential address which is safer. We accept his submissions and evidence that the former address had two schools in close proximity – one within a hundred metres behind it and another 2-300 metres away. Therefore, traffic and footfall around that area was significant around peak times of the day – albeit the Appellant managed to operate without incident.26.In contrast, we accept the Appellant’s submissions and evidence that the nearest school to his new property is a mile away and the property is on a middle road of three roads. His road is a small quietish road so that drivers use the two other roads when seeking a cut-through. We accept his submission that it is a quieter area than his previous address and are satisfied that the drive on his property is adequate for safety checks to be performed without issue or impact. 27.We accept the submission that the Social Club is no longer a realistic or sensible option for the Appellant to utilise as an operating centre – given its cost, distance from his house, lack of a second vehicle and its relative busyness. The Appellant has already given up his agreement to use that site. We also note, but have not taken into account, the Appellant’s suggestion that unless his current address is authorised as an operating centre, he may no longer be able to continue in business. Our primary concern is to ensure public and vehicular safety in the authorisation of operating centres.