AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

B Licence for Plant Hirers in Dispute

1st April 1960, Page 44
1st April 1960
Page 44
Page 44, 1st April 1960 — B Licence for Plant Hirers in Dispute
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?

Keywords : Wardlaw, Knaggs, Haulage

QHOULD plant hirers have B licences so that they could conveniently undertake site work ? This question was argued before Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, on Monday.

The railways and nine hauliers objected to an application by Messrs. Knaggs Bros., Saltbum, Yorks, for a B licence for two vehicles to carry general goods within 90 miles. Mr. R. J. Knaggs said • that he and his brother were plant hirers, and it would be advantageous to them to be able to carry materials for building contractors.

He told Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for the road objectors, that a number of other plant hirers and civil engineers also carried on haulage businesses, and if Knaggs were to compete with them they would need a B licence. What little work Knaggs could do, however, would not affect established hauliers.

Mr. Wardlaw said that he could not accept the principle that every builder and plant hirer should be allowed to carry other people's goods.

Mr. Hanlon wondered if the objectors would accept a condition to the licence E2 permitting the haulage of materials within five miles of any site where an excavator was employed, and only for the duration of its use.

He thought that it was exasperating for a builder to have to seek elsewhere for lorries to shift a small amount of material when C-licensed vehicles stood idle nearby. A restriction of the kind he suggested would facilitate building work, but prevent the applicants from entering haulage.

Mr. Wardlaw stated that such a grant would encourage many plant hirers to apply for B licences. Mr. Hanlon refused the application on the ground of lack of evidence of need, but advised Mr. Knaggs to keep a record of the occasions when existing licence-holders were unable to work within reasonable notice. This might be used as supporting evidence if another application were made.

It was also disputed whether Knaggs could use their C-licensed tippers to carry mattrials dug by their own excavator.

Mr. Knaggs said that he believed this to be lawful, but Mr. Wardlaw could not subscribe to this view.