TRIBUNAL ALLOWS ONE APPEAL AND PART OF ANOTHER A S briefly
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
reported last week, the Transport Tribunal allowed part of an appeal by Lowestoft Coaling Co. Ltd., permitting two B-licensed vehicles to 'carry pea haulm, and an appeal by T. W. Bell (Belsay) Ltd. against a decision given by the Northern deputy Licensing Authority.
The Tribunal refused another part of the appeal by Lowestoft Coaling Co. asking for the haulage of seeds, grain and fertilizers, For the company, Mr. C. J. Millar said that seven C-licensed and three B-licensed vehicles were operated. Two of the B vehicles hauled fruit, vegetables, fish, coal and coke within 30 miles, and application was made to the Eastern deputy L.A. for an amendment to allow the vehicles to carry seeds, fertilizers, grain and pea haulm. This was refused. At the hearing, supporting letters from Birds Eye Foods Ltd„ Lowestoft, and East Coast Grain Silos Ltd., Norwich, were produced, stating that they needed the use of the applicant's lorries to carry pea haulm, grain and seeds.
120 Vehicles At the Tribunal last week, Mr. R. M. Yorke, representing the respondents-10 haulage firms in the Yarmouth and Lowestoft areas—said these firms had some 120 vehicles between them which were licensed to do this type of work; they could meet all the demands of Birds Eye and East Coast Grain Silos.
Mr. G. D. Squibb, president of the Tribunal, said that the appellant already carried vegetables and peas into the Birds Eye factory. "It seems reasonable to us ", he said. "that if these vehicles take peas into the works, they should be allowed to come out with pea haulm and we will allow the appeal to this extent."
So Far as the other commodities were concerned there was not strong enough evidence to persuade the Tribunal to allow that part of the appeal.
• No Respondents Present A wide range of goods will he carried by T. W. Bell (Belsay) Ltd. of Newcastle upon Tyne, as a result of the company's appeal being upheld.
Miss E. Havers, for the appellant, said the company wanted an addition to the conditions of the B licence' of one of its lorries; this was hauling agricultural produce and requisites, and also doing work for the Northumberland County Council. Last August an application was heard by the Northern deputy L.A. The additional commodities which the company wanted to haul were machinery, livestock, furniture, and beer and spirits for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries.
The objections were mainly because of the livestock, the other commodities not being contested. Miss Havers said that at that hearing there had been numerous objections from other haulage companies. But none of them was at the Tribunal and there was no one representing the respondents.