No. B Licence to Cheapen Transport
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Psuggest that experienced hauliers could not be trusted to carry timber was ridiculous, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, declared last week. He pointed out to representatives of J. C. Burton and Sons, Ltd., Framwell Gate Moor, Durham. that timber was one of the oldest traffics in the haulage industry.
Burton's, large-scale sawmillcrs and timber merchants, were refused permission to transfer two platform vehicles and an articulated outfit from C to A licence. Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for the applicants, said they carried timber from sawmills in isolated districts of the south. Because of empty outward running and rising costs, they wanted to carry return loads from Durham to the Midlands, London, 'Kent, and the Saxmundltam and Bath areas.
He suggested that the case came under the &matt appeal principles. The Transport Tribunal had laid down that manufacturers should be allowed to carry for hire or reward on return journeys, if a case for special treatment could be made out, and if there was no alternative transport for the C licensee's own goods.
Mr. J. K. Burton, a director of Burton's, said it was essential that drivers should be able to establish whether or not a load was prime timber before accepting delivery, which meant that they had to be specially trained. Hauliers could not supply this service, but the railways had been used when suitable. However, loads going by rail had sometimes been ruined.
In any event, he added, both types of transport were so expensive that it was cheaper for the •company to send their vehicles out empty. If the application were granted, they would obtain loads of timber through their Newcastle quay agents, also chemical traffic from a Langham Moor haulier.
For the five road objectors, Mr. F. Milton said Burton's merely wanted to cheapen their transport. There was no evidence of need for transport from Durham, and four hauliers would say they had facilities available.
Refusing the application, Mr. Hanlon said there were no records or figures of C-licence carriage, and the question of finance seemed to be the basis of the application. He was not satisfied that a special case had been made out under the Barran appeal principles. The only evidence of need was from the company's own representative.