Meat Operators Refused 24 Vans
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN, last Friday, the Western YV Licensing Authority resumed hearing the application of Transport (Bristol), Ltd., for a licence for 24 meat. vehicles, Mr. H. R. Hal&on, general Manager of the company, said that since the previous hearing he had encountered difficulties with shipments. -Some meat had to be left in cold store overnight, which would be impossible in summer.
He had tried to get the help of some of the 24 objectors to move the meat away, but had been able to have only two loads taken by one operator. The others could not assist as their lorries were busy, and one haulier required at least 24 hours' notice.
Mr. T. D. Corpe, for the objectors: "A very good way to make a case. You take on more work than you can cope with and then ring up contractors at short notice."
Mr. Halson: "I took on what I thought I could reasonably cope with," Mr. J. H. Thomas, superintendent of Towers and Co., Ltd., wholesale meat suppliers, said that his company intended to use Avonmouth for imports instead of Southampton. Within a year they would be importing 30 " parcels " of meat, each varying in quantity from 250-500 tons, through Avonmouth.
"T support this application," said Mr, n32
Thomas, " because we have had difficulties in the past and unless more transport is available there will be more difficulties in the future at Avonmouth," It was stated for some of the objectors that 20 per cent. of vehicles already calling at Avonmouth returned empty. Since meat had been decontrolled, the business of one objector had halved. British Road Services, whose meat earnings had dropped, could handle heavier demands, and British Railways had an adequate number of insulated trucks, some of which were frequently unwanted.
Mr, A W. Balne, for some of the objectors, said that if the application were granted, all the operators in Bristol would be eliminated.
Mr. T. D. Corpe added that the case was the most remarkable he had heard in that court. The applicants had been in business only a year and had the audacity to apply for 24 vehicles.
The Authority said that it was obvious that compelling evidence would be needed to satisfy him that the vehicles were required. "I cannot find that the evidence called supports the application. which I must refuse," he stated.
The earlier part of the hearing was reported in The Commercial Motor last week.