AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

HEAVY OPPOSITION TO A-LICENCE BID

12th November 1965
Page 71
Page 71, 12th November 1965 — HEAVY OPPOSITION TO A-LICENCE BID
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

& FRESH bid for a new A licence by –I Mr. J. R. Margrett, of Hope Mansel, ear Ross-on-Wye, was heavily opposed t Worcester on Wednesday. After a ull day's hearing, the West Midland eputy Licensing Authority, Mr. R. tall, reserved his decision.

The normal user sought for the 7+-ton ipper involved would permit the carriage ,f road-making and building materials nd agricultural produce and requisites vithin 150 miles.; it waS in the same terms s a previous grant made by Mr.' Hall n December. 1964, wheti he 'authorized . Contract A-to-A switch:, Following an ,ppe'al to the Transport Tribunal in June his year, this grant was set aside..

Objectors were British Railways loard and seven private hauliers.

The existing Contract A 'vehicle with arybrook Quarries, a Roads Reconstrucion Co. subsidiary, would be .continued, .aid Mr. Margrett; that vehicle was fairly veil employed and had earned £489 in kugust and £543 in September. He agreed pat quarry output and sales fluctuated onside [-ably • For the private objectors, Mr. enkins suggested that several customers ho had supported the previous successul application had not benefited at all rom the grant, as Margrett had worked or other concerns, and he wondered if is would prove true of this application. argrett said that he had only had the licence for six months; the vehicle had een fully committed and had not lost a ay's work.

Mr. Jenkins said that his clients were ot only concerned with the question of ates: they were concerned that the vehicle uld he let loose on the open market. e thought the six customer witnesses upporting the application Should be epresscd at the thought that the previous upporters got no advantage. The deputy LA asked Mr. Jenkins if Margrett had any legal obligation to work for those supporting the previous application. Mr. Jenkins said there was no legal obligation, but a moral one. The application should be treated with a pinch of salt. Mr. Carless said there was evidently no ill feeling from those concerned. Shakemantle Quarries, who also made doura bricks, were supporting the present application.

Supparting evidence was given by six customers and schedules of availability were submitted by Mr. Richard Read, director of Richard Read (Transport) Ltd., and by Mr. George M. Read, director of George Read (Transport) Ltd.

Mr. Carless, for Margrett, said the objectors had sought most unfairly to cast a slur on the applicant. The figures proved that in six months work to the value of almost £1,000 had been done for one supporter of the previous application and some work had been done for the Llanwern Steel Works, who had supported by letter. The Tribunal considered evidence that was six months old and the position today was vastly different, he submitted. A legitimate business had been built up on the basis of the earlier grant made by Mr. Hall and the objectors would not be affected at all if a grant were made.

Tags

Organisations: Transport Tribunal
Locations: Worcester

comments powered by Disqus