A letter is not enough
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• In Liverpool on Wednesday the North Western deputy LA, Mr. A. H. Joliiffe, said he saw no reason why Shell-Mex and BP Ltd. should be treated any differently from other companies requiring transport and that a letter would not be sufficient evidence. Earlier during the inquiry he had refused an application because customers had not attended.
A. Darlington Heswall (Ltd.) was applying to add a 4f-ton tanker trailerto its A licence to carry fuel oils for Shell from November 1 1968 to April 30 1969 and submitted a letter in support. For Darlington, Mr. G. H. P. Beames said it was not Shell's policy to send representatives to traffic courts but Darlington was prepared to give an undertaking that only this work would be done.
Mr. A. T. Darlington, director, said solid fuel had represented a considerable part of the firm's business previously, but traffic had declined from 23,672 tons in 1960 to 3,813 tons last year. Industrial users had converted to liquid and gas fuels.
For three objectors Mr. J. S. Lawton pointed out that Darlington was already operating an articulated fiat or tipper trailer and that neither was being surrendered. The objectors were anxious to protect their summer,tanker traffic. He felt two short-term licences running concurrently would meet the need and said the objectors would not oppose this. Mr. Darlington said he would withdraw his application and follow this course.