AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Seven Artics for Sutton's Following Agreement

18th June 1965, Page 50
18th June 1965
Page 50
Page 50, 18th June 1965 — Seven Artics for Sutton's Following Agreement
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

ATa public inquiry at Manchester on Monday the North Western deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, agreed to an adjournment to permit applicants and objectors to confer on an A-licence variation application by Sutton and Sons (St. Helens) Ltd. for 12 additional articulated vehicles—units and trailers each of SI tons. The objectors were represented by Mr. A. Jolly, for BRS, Mr. G. P. Crowe, for Liverpool Warehousing Co., Robertson Buckley, and Edward Nichols, and Mr. L. Manchester for British Railways.

On resumption, Mr. J. Booth, for the applicants, told the LA it had been agreed to amend the application to seven vehicles with normal user as for the authorized fled, which is virtually " general goods—Great Britain ", in consequence of which the objections would not be pursued.

In answer to Mr. Booth, the applicants' general manager, Mr. J. S. Darbyshire, confirmed the growth of the fleet from 63 vehicles in 1963 to the present 75 and, by reference to schedules handed in, that it was fully employed. In progressive six-monthly periods to April last, 69 vehicles carried, on average, 316 tons per month in the first period and 75 vehicles carried 311 tons in the second. Despite additional tonnage authorized, sub-contracting continued to increase.

The witness also confirmed that during the past six months 292 loads had been available to sub-contractors, involving 889 "contacts" being made, from which applicants received 598 refusals of help.

13arium Chemicals Ltd., Widnes, complained in a letter of unfulfilled requirements, which Mr. Darbyshire said was causing concern as he had received many such letters from other customers. Although applicants had kept up with the maintenance side, the vehicle repainting programme (at two-yearly intervals) had had to be postponed.

Mr. 1. E. Wright, of Rylands Bros. Ltd., Warrington, spoke of additional traffic being given to Sutton, because another operator (not one of the objectors) was unsatisfactory, and of the effort being made to increase sales in the London area.

Mr. H. Lowe, group transport controller of Pilkington Bros., St. Helens, gave evidence of the increasing use made of applicants' services, particularly the trunk service to London. In the past three years traffic given to applicants had increased from 62 to 80 loads weekly.

On receiving assurance that the additional vehicles would be used more to meet this deficiency in customers' requirements, than interference with the level of sub-contracting, Mr. Jolliffe granted the application as amended.


comments powered by Disqus