Tribunal to Consider 'Outsiders'
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TO what extent, and in what circumstances, was it right for one Licensing Authority to authorize work in another traffic area without publication of the relevant application in the second area? Counsel argued this issue before the Transport Tribunal in London on Friday when an appellant complained that there had not been this publication. The Tribunal reserved its decision For H. R. D. Maconochie Ltd., Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon appealed against the grant by the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority of a B licence for an articulated low-loader to A. W. Barnes and Sons, of Radcliffe. He said the company's vehicle was formerly on a C licence and their business was to hire out road rollers. The grant now permitted them to compete with road haulage businesses in the area, which could mean a loss of :£1,000 a year to Yorkshire operators.
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon then referred to what he described as the common issue in the appeal under consideration and another one (Carman Transport—due to be heard). Unlike public service vehicles, goods vehicles were not licensed on a basis of routes, said Mr. Samuel-Gibbon. There was no tangible evidence of need for additional facilities in the area.
Mr. E. Taylor, for Barnes and Sons, said that when Radcliffe was established to be the base of operations they could only apply for licences to the North Western traffic area, though their busi ness took them to areas where roads were being made. It was within the discretion of a Licensing Authority to ask another to publish an application. But that was an extra-statutory act and depended on the Licensing Authorities concerned.
If another area would not publish an application there was nothing that the base area Licensing Authority or the Transport Tribunal could do about it. Mr. Taylor contended that there was abundant evidence of the need of more low-loaders.
In the second case, Mr. SamuelGibbon said Carman Transport Ltd., of Scholar Green, Stoke-on-Trent, appealed against the refusal of the Deputy Licensing Authority to allow the addition of five vehicles to their fleet.
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon said that Authority held that nearly all the evidence submitted at the inquiry at Macclesfield related to work outside the area—including Dagenham. Slough, and Continental services. That Authority also objected to the formal declaration of normal user.
In June, in response to • the firm's amended declaration of normal user, the Authority told Carman's that he should not deal with a new application until the Transport Tribunal had disposed of their appeal against his earlier refusal to permit them more vehicles.
There was a stalemate, said Mr. Samuel-Gibbon.
The hearing was adjourned.