Car Transporter Bid for B-to-A
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DECISION on an application by By 41-1 Pass Transport (St. Austell) Ltd., Shepton Mallet, Somerset, was reserved by the Western Licensing Authority, Mr. I. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, last week.
Mr. T. D. Corpe, for the applicant company, said there were two particular aspects of the case—a change of base from St. Austell to Shepton Mallet and an application for a change from B to A licence for three existing car transporters.
Shepton Mallet was a suitable changeover point for the By Pass service between Cornwall, Luton, the Midlands and the North. In addition to transporters the company employed eight drivers using tradeplates who were concerned with car delivery. Six transport drivers lived in the Shepton Mallet area, as did the managing director of the firm, Mr. Richard Smith.
Mr. Corpe added: "The applicants acquired accommodation at an old brewery at Shepton Mallet for parking and storage for 1,000 cars. The change of base does not mean any alteration in the way they are operating their service and I think none of the objectors is con
cerned about this change. The real issue is the application for an A licence in place of an existing B licence and the reason for that is to improve flexibility."
Giving evidence, Mr. Smith said with regard to the change of base his company planned to improve the service it was operating and found Shepton Mallet the most suitable changeover point.
Asked by Mr. Corpe why he was applying for an A licence, Mr. Smith said Vauxhall had a factory at Luton and also at Ellesmere Port, Liverpool. By Pass had only one vehicle out of three that could collect from Ellesmere Port and customers had to wait for anything up to two weeks for delivery because of pressure of work. Delays had prompted criticisms from some customers because the company had only one vehicle suitably licensed.
Mr. George Mercer, appearing for two of the 10 objectors, Furness and Parker Ltd. and Distributor Deliveries Ltd., claimed the reason for the application was to "shoot up facilities by three times what are offered now ". He felt there was no justification for the application.