"Forcing" of Contract A Licences A CONTENTION, often heard in support
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
of railway opposition, that where a Contract A licence could meet transport requirements this was the proper remedy, failed at a Manchester inquiry before Sir William Hart, North-Western Deputy Licensing Authority, last week.
The point was strongly raised by Mr. R. H. Mais as an objection to the extension of the radius of a B licence of Messrs. Coates Bros., of Stalybridge. He submitted that public or limited earlier licences should not be extended where it was admitted that a COntract A licence could satisfy the requirements of the customer. In this case the chief need for an extension of the applicant's radius from 10 to 30 miles was work for John Greenwood Bricks Co., Ltd., of Glossop. This company already employed five vehicles on A-contracts and its representative admitted that a further contract vehicle would suffice.
Mr. J. A. Dunkerley, for the applicants, replied that neither the Act nor the findings of the Appeal Tribunal provided any authority whatever for' the refusal of further facilities to the holder of a 13 licence, merely because a Contract A licence would be suitable. The additional radius brought no danger here of a disturbance of the pool of transport.
Sir William Hart granted the extra mileage applied for, but limited it to the concern named and two other customers.