Ferry Service Application With a Difference
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SOMETHING in the nature of an anticlimax followed the partial hearing at Leeds last week, before the Yorkshire deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. J. H. E. Randolph, of one of the several applications made in connection with the inauguration of the ferry services between Hull and Rotterdam and Hull and Gothenburg.
Lep Transport Ltd. was seeking to add to its A licence, based on Goole, five articulated vehicles with a normal user stating that they would be used mainly in connection with the Continental ferry services from Humber ports.
Following the luncheon adjournment, Mr. J. W. Bosomworth, for Transport Holding Company (BRS) told Mr. Randolph that agreement had been reached whereby, on the application being amended to three articulated outfits, the objections by BRS. Key Transport and Warehousing Co., and British Railways would not be pursued. Whilst making it clear that the objectors felt any grant would lead to abstraction, they had taken account of some of the evidence given by the applicant's United Kingdom transport manager, Mr. K. A. Lamb, being acceptable.
Speaking for BRS alone. Mr. Bosomworth said he did not think there was any inconsistency in the BRS approach to this application, compared with the other applications pending on this ferry work, because in this case Mr. Lamb. speaking from long experience on ferry services, had shown the immediate need would be for two to three vehicles. Mr. Maxwell Gosnay. for Key Transport, said the objectors took the view that a different type of evidence had been forthcoming.
Mr. P. Kenny. for the applicants, emphasized that the approach for compromise had come from the objectors. that Lep Transport did not make applications for more vehicles than were required and the agreement was accepted with the reservation that it was the firm intention to come back for further vehicles as the occasion demanded.
Mr. Randolph, in granting the application as amended, said the parties had taken a commonsense course, in view of the delay in the inauguration of the new ferry services. He had taken the view that there was evidence of need and appreciated the point made on behalf of the objectors—that this was a different case; it was a question of each application being judged on its merits.
In his evidence Mr. Lamb had spoken of the ramifications of the Lep Group, of being associated with the TilburyRotterdam and Irish Ferry services since their inception and of long experience of requirements. including a part-lot service. which so far as he knew was only given by Lep. His company had worked with Jonkers. large Dutch road hauliers, for 2+ years and there was an exchange of trailer working between them. Lep had created a section at its Hull branch to deal with the new services nd he gave examples of traffic from northern firms. handled by them through Tilbury. to be diverted via Hull. saying it was the natural route. In his opinion, ordinary everyday working and ferry service working did not mix—a reason for them introducing TIR trailers on the Tilbury route. Trailer fitments were being adjusted to meet requirements of the Kangaroo service being introduced by the French railways. In cross-examination he agreed any diversion from Tilbury did not require additional facilities and the vehicles might infrequently be used for general cargo and work to and from Immingham.
Some 20 documents and schedules were handed in and Mr. Lamb was congratulated on their manner of presentation.