Objectors to 12-Vehicle Bid Accused of Delaying Tactics
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE objectors to a 12-vehicle A-licence application were accused of "laying a smoke screen of delaying tactics to prevent the public having a decision" by counsel representing G. W. Peacock, of Biggleswade, during the third day's hearing of an application before the Eastern Licensing Authority, Mr. W. P. S. Ormond, at Cambridge on Tuesday.
Complaining that . the application, which had been submitted in May, 1963, had since been adjourned twice (in July and December), Mr. M. H. Jackson Lipkin, for Peacock, said that his client's customers "could not go on waiting for what is supposed to be a speedy administrative process ". Such delays were tantamount to a denial of justice, he said.
At the start of Tuesday's hearing, Mr. P. L. Barratt, transport organizer for the C.W.S. Cockayne Hatley horticultural estate, said that if the application was granted, he hoped that by running outwards and inwards loaded, the applicant would be able to reduce his haulage rates. Peacock was his sole haulage contractor, but if, because of lack of facilities, Peacock defaulted in supplying haulage, he would have to go elsewhere.
Mr. W. E. Wilson, secretary of A. Cooper (Transport) Ltd., of Sandy, said his company's objection was not based on vehicle availability as such, but it was felt that if greater facilities were given to other contractors in the area, his company would lose traffic. They had already lost one substantial customer to Peacock, he said.
Mr. J. R. Cherry, of E. T. Cherry and Sons, Hitchin, also objecting, said his company had lost work directly to Peacock "purely because of rates ". That was his sole reason for objecting, he added.
A witness from the remaining objector, British Road Services, told the Authority that last year up to the end of November, B.R.S. had a national unused vehicle availability of well over 3 m. tons.
After solicitors representing the objectors had submitted that no case had been made out by the applicant, Mr. Jackson Lipkin said that words failed him how to describe the figures produced by the objectors, particularly bearing in mind the inordinate length of the adjournments. If the application was granted, he said, it would mean that licences for 16 vehicles (three already operating under A, nine on Contract A and four on B licences) would be surrendered.
The applicant proposed to operate four vehicles less than authorized at present with a reduction of 11 tons in unladen weight. Innumerable customer witnesses had been called, continued Mr. Jackson Lipkin, and Peacock had established a prima fade need for the grant. Not one of the objectors had shown that they were able or willing to carry one single load for those customers, he added.
Adjourning his decision, which he said he would give as soon as possible, Mr. Ormond remarked that the adjournments in the case had not been made at his request. Mr. D. Palmer, for the independent objectors replied: "We -,are jointly and severally to blame ".