AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Brig. Dowse Recognizes Four Operating Centres

22nd October 1948
Page 56
Page 56, 22nd October 1948 — Brig. Dowse Recognizes Four Operating Centres
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?

Application by A. Pannell, Ltd., Covering Long-used Bases, Granted by Metropolitan Authority

LAST Friday, Brig, R. J. 0. Dowse, LaMetropolitan Licensing Authority, supported by Sir Henry Piggott, his deputy, granted the request of A. Pannell, Ltd., for the recognition of four centres of operation.

Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, K.C., M.P., and Mr David Karmel appeared for A. Pannell, Ltd Mr. F. A. Stockdale represented the Railway and Road Transport Executives.

Sir David said that the principles governing the decision in the Barrett case (reported in "The Commercial Motor" on October 1) were loyally accepted, but that they did not arise in the present case. The operating centres for which recognition was sought had been established for a number of years. One was at Finchley Road, London, NW.] 1, another was at Elstree, a third was at Surbiton, and the fourth was at the company's original address in Vauxhall. Seventy-two vehicles were involved.

Business 48 Years Old The business was established at Vaux hall in 1000. In 1923 the company acquired a haulage business at Finchley, and two years later another at Surbiton, where some ot the original customers were still being served. Finally, because of the development of traffic in that direction, in 1937 the company acquired land at Elstree, on which garaging and other accommodation would have been erected had it not been for the unsettled state of national affairs.

Sir David suggested that in this case, perhaps. Sec. 58(5) of the Transport Act was of greater significance than the preceding sub-section. Of the four centres involved, three had been in operation for over 20 years and one for over 10 years. Counsel said that the company might have to establish a temporary service outside the normal radius of operation in order to follow the activities of regular customers.

No Charge Expected

Mr. H. T. Pannell, director and secretary, confirmed that no material change in the work undertaken or the ground covered was envisaged. The depots at Finchley and Elstree were under his direction, he said, whilst the Vauxhall and Surbiton depots were controlled by his brother. To a certain extent, vehicles had to be regarded as common to all centres, although each vehicle was allocated to one in particular.

From a map produced by Mr. Stock date, Sir Henry Piggott discovered that a 25-mile radius of the four centres represented an area measuring 75 miles from nbrth to south and 60 from east to west.

The Licensing Authority then pointed

out that in a pre-war application only two centres had been specified, and in A38

the application for resumption of the licence after the war there was mention of only one. When he asked why, Sir David suggested that anticipation of a discussion such as this might be the reason.

Mr. Stockdale explained that, where new legislation was involved, the earliest cases were hound to be hardfought, but this did not mean that the fighting would be over-hard because they happened to be test cases. He would not admit that the present instance came under Section 58(5) rather than the preceding sub-section of the Act, but he agreed that the nerve centres of the business might be regarded as at Vauxhall and Finchley. Against the recognition of these he was disposed to make no further representations, but he maintained his attitude against the-other two,

In granting the application, the Licensing Authority said: "We, as Licensing Authorities, feel that it would not be proper for us, in the exercise of our discretion, to fix a notional operating centre merely to relieve an operator from the obligation imposed by the Act to obtain a permit from the British Transport Commission. it was on these grounds I declined to concede to the request of Barrett's.

"in our view, the exercise of his dis cretion by a Licensing Authority should be directed towards assisting in the general scheme and purpose of the Act of 1947 as regards the carriage of goods for hire or reward by road, which, generally speaking, can be stated as the prohibition of such haulage except under a permit issued by the British Transport Commission.

"Applying the principle to the case now before us we think there can be no doubt as regards the operating centres asked for at Finchley Road and Vauxhall, and these should be allowed.

"Taking next the case at Surbiton, we feel that it has been established that Mr. Jupp operated from that centre, and the present applicants, as his successors in title, have continued to do so. We are therefore prepared to accede to a request for an operating centre at that point.

Site Bought in 1937 "The case of Elstree is less clear, but we think we are entitled to take into account that the site was purchased to serve as an operating centre as long ago as 1937 and, but for the incidence of war, would have been so used. We accept the evidence of the applicant that the purchased site was part of a deliberate policy decided upon before the outbreak of war to establish an operating centre north of London.

"As in other cases that come before us, we feel that we should take into consideration the difficulties and disabilities created by the war and the effects of the war, and we feel that our discretion can be reasonably exercised to enable the applicant to obtain an operating centre, as was his intention before the outbreak of war." • The third application, originally to have been heard on September 27, has been adjourned indefinitely. It was by E. C. Smith, Ltd., Shere, near Guildford.


comments powered by Disqus