AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No case to answer

1st May 1970, Page 60
1st May 1970
Page 60
Page 60, 1st May 1970 — No case to answer
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?

• Although he requested that all the objectors' evidence should be heard, the Yorkshire deputy LA, Mr M. Gosnay, said that there was no prima facie case of sufficient strength, when he refused an application by F. Suttill Ltd, of Ripley, to add a low-loader to its B licence. There were six objectors to the application which was heard in Leeds last week.

The application was amended by restricting it to three named customers and reducing the radius of operation from 100 to 50 miles. Mr H. G. Hall, for the applicant company. said that it had been operating a low-loader on trade plates up to the end of last year.

Mr Frank Suttill, managing director of the company, said that his low-loader would plate at about 32 tons gvw. His firm was a plant hirer and agricultural and general contractor and 50 per cent of the low-loader's time would be employed in this work. Low-loader transport was difficult to obtain and there was usually a three to four days' wait before this transport could be acquired.

Mr J. K. Watkinson, a director of James Watkinson Ltd, objecting said that he had low-loader availability. He was reasonably busy but local moves could be fitted in very easily. Schedules of availability were produced by Elliot (Hauliers) Ltd and BRS.

Tags

Locations: Leeds

comments powered by Disqus