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 
Tribunal Reserve Decision on THC Appeal
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AST week at the Transport Tribunal, it was submitted by Mr. R. M. Yorke, representing the Transport Holding Company (BRS). that roll-on/rolloil ferry services meant more efficient operation by existing vehicles which could do more work. Therefore. he said. there was no justification for licensing additional vehicles when new ferries came into operation.
The company appealed against a decision of the Yorkshire Licensing Authority to add three artics to the fleet of 57 operated by Hunters of Hull ITransport and Warehousing) Ltd. by a variation of the A licence. The ribunal reserved its decision.
Mr. Yorke said that the Licensing Authority had proceeded on an erroneous basis, from which he had since resiled. that the introduction of roll-on/roll-off services created an increasing demand for vehicles.
• in fact, it was the experience of the THC that the more efficient operation initiated in this way meant that more work could he done by the same number of vehicles. Demands at Tilbury and elsewhere had been, met by the substitution of existing vehicles for the type required.
First of Many Hunters' application, which was for five vehicles. was the first of a number to the LA for more than 40 vehicles for orwroion h% the new Hull ferries, went on Mr. Yorke. At a public inquiry in June, the LA indicated he would hold all the cases before reaching a decision. Nevertheless, after reserving his decision he made a grant of three vehicles.
He had since refused an application on the ground that the need could be met by reconstruction of existing vehicles. The THC would not oppose Substitution and the LA was now apparently taking the same line.
Mr. R. E. Paterson, representing Hunters of Hull. said the aplication was made to meet a foreseeable need which it was impossible to qualify at an earlier stage. Contrary to .Mr. Yorke's submission. four additional vehicles had been granted for operation via Tilbury.
The appellant produced no schedules of availability and the respondent was criticized for refusing to give information regarding customers or commodities. he said.
When this had been &me previously there were many cases where BRS representatives had been round the following morning canvassing customers concerned.
Replying, Mr. Yorke contended that if the respondent's submission were accepted no LA would ever know what it was proposed the additional vehicles would do or whether the work was within the normal user. The objectors could not call evidence in rebuttal, he added.
TRIBUNAL SITTINGS THE Transport Tribunal is sitting in London next week. Appeals listed for hearing are as follows:—
Tuesday, November 23: A. Grainger (Smethwick) Ltd. against a decision of the Metropolitan deputy LA, with British Railways Board and another responding.
Wednesday, November 24: British Railways Board (THC) against a decision of the Northern LA, with H. and L. Haulage Co. Ltd. responding.
Thursday, November 25: Duncan Hill against a decision of the Northern LA. with British Railways Board and another responding.