AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Evidence too thin for grant

17th May 1968, Page 48
17th May 1968
Page 48
Page 48, 17th May 1968 — Evidence too thin for grant
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?

• Having only been granted a licence consolidating the conditions of four A licensed vehicles in January this year, J. R. Forrest and Son (Transport) Ltd., Manchester, applied again to the North-Western deputy LA in Manchester last week for additional vehicles and facilities.

The company sought two more 9+-ton artics on A, an additional 2-1.-ton van to its 8-licence, and radius extension on the latter licence, the conditions to read: "Collection and delivery of goods (excluding parcels and smalls) within 50 miles; goods for Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., as required".

Objecting for BRS, Mr. J. S. Lawton pointed out that in January an application for 10 vehicles had been reduced to four by agreement and five days later, this new application had been lodged. He submitted that the application was premature.

The deputy LA felt the rather thin evidence could support an additional A-licensed vehicle. He extended the existing three B vehicles conditions to carry for Dunlop from a 30-mile radius to "as required" and granted an additional B vehicle on this condition only.

Tags

People: J. S. Lawton
Locations: Manchester

comments powered by Disqus