1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180 
Reserved Decision on 'Blanket Consent' Application
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Stockton last week the Northern .aflic Commissioners ruled that it tssible to grant " blanket consent " is routes without the applicants specific roads. They overruled mission by United Automobile s Ltd. that an application by an Corporation was invalid in law. , B. Haworth, town clerk, made 3n's application, which was for to operate on all existing roads, oads yet to be constructed at iby and parts of Stockton rural The matter had been adjourned the objectors had raised a legal
application, said Mr. Haworth, iade to avoid going through the 'Heated and expensive' machinery lime they sought " very minor" Is, and other operators would not :judiced because the Corporation still have to obtain road service s before it could operate. Followie overruling of his preliminary ;sion, it was stated by Mr. J. L. R.
for United. that it was intended ly to the Queen's Bench Division ; High Court for an order of ition.
chairman of the Commissioners, A. T. Hanlon. drew attention to the tremendous growth of Tees-side and the housing developments now taking place and said that both Stockton and Middlesbrough Corporations were authorized to operate over various roads at Thornaby. Stockton sought overall consent for all existing roads in addition to those yet to be built within the borough and the same applied to certain parts of the Stockton rural area. United objected, holding that the application was null and void under Section 101 and 102 of the 1930 Road Traffic Act. This called for the local authority to describe each road to which the application related.
The Commissioners, had, said Mr. Hanlon, granted a similar application for consent by Newcastle Corporation in 1952, and he concluded a grant could be made for any number of roads so long as the limits were clearly defined.
The Commissioners ruled that the application was valid and they reserved their decision following a further submission by Mr. Croft that the Corporation had failed to establish any case of need. They also reserved their decision on an application by Stockton Corporation for consent to operate along George Street, Langley Avenue and Northumberland Avenue, Thornaby.