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 
Six-vehicle E. Midland B Licence Refused
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN application by Young (Flitwick) Development Ltd., of Leighton Buzzard, for six vehicles on a new B licence, was refused by the East Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. C. R. Hodgson, at Aylesbury last week in a reserved decision.
The conditions sought—" Building and road-making materials and spoil within 25 miles "—was amended to "Spoil from sites upon which licensee's earth-moving plant is operating, within 25 miles" before the hearing opened, in agreement with the objectors.
In evidence for the applicant, Mr. R. V. Willis, director of R. W. Willis and Sons Ltd., said he contracted for local authorities' housing development in the Leighton Buzzard area and used one or two contractors, mostly Young, for site clearance, but sometimes was held up as Young was not always able to obtain lorries when required.
Mr. G. Webster, general foreman of George Dawson and Sons Ltd., said that Young had a contract for clearance with his company on a 4.-5 acre site at Ayles c20 bury and submitted it was essential for the operator to have B-licensed vehicles to do the job satisfactorily. He added that Young would be asked to tender for future work.
Managing director of the applicant company, Mr. R. W. Young, said he had a fleet of 15 C-licensed vehicles and was not interested in B-licence haulage generally. He wished only to remove spoil dug by his own machinery.
Miss E. Havers, for the applicant, submitted that this was only a modest application to tie Young's vehicles to his own excavating machines. He wanted to do more conveniently the job for which he had contracted. The majority of the objectors, she contended, operated in a similar way with B licences.
There were 12 objectors. Mr. J. Amphiett, representing six of these, submitted that no evidence of need had been proved. Several of the witnesses called spoke of vehicle availability and said they could have supplied Young with vehicles when he claimed he was unable to obtain transport.