Dempster Dumpster Appeal Allowed
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN a second case heard last week, the 1 Transport Tribunal allowed an appeal by C. Firbank and Sons Ltd., of Luton, against the Metropolitan Licensing Authority's refusal to add two Dempster Dumpsters to a B licence to move commercial waste and rubbish from shops and factories in the Luton area.
For the appellants, Mr. M. H. JacksonLipkin said that the Authority had only recently granted similar vehicles to another Luton company, F. and R. Cawley Ltd. The L.A. felt that, they being experimental vehicles whose potential had not been fully exploited, it would not be right to make a further grant because there would be specialized facilities in excess of requirements. (Cawley had made representations before the L.A. during the inquiry, but were not respondents to the appeal.) Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said that, although decided subsequent to the Metropolitan Authority's refusal of the application, the c10 Tribunal's judgment in the M.A.T. Transport appeal was applicable. The present appeal, he submitted, was practically identical. Because of the refusal, Firbank —an established tipper operator—might lose customers of long-standing who wished to change over to the Dempster Dumpster system of waste disposal, Why, asked Mr. Jackson-Lipkin, should one man's clients be forced to go to another operator?
Giving judgment, the Tribunal's president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, said that although the L.A. was right, in a sense, in describing the Dumpsters as specialized vehicles, the work which they did was not new, "It is an old type of work being done in an improved manner ", Mr. Squibb continued. "This is a case in which the appellant's business is capable of growing in accordance with modern ideas. In our view they ought to be allowed to improve their methods and keep up with the times,"