SMOOTH SAILING AT SOUTHAMPTON
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
0 very similar applications for hich two days had been set aside dealt with in a little under two by the South Eastern deputy sing Authority, Mr. A. C. Shepherd. uthampton last week. Both applicawere granted.
the first application Hill and Sons and Denmead) I.td. asked for a icence during the continuance of an ng A licence, replacing the current armal users by one. "general goods, miles". and involving 18 vehicles. :lions from H. T. Hughes and Sons and W. G. Privett and Sons Ltd. withdrawn at the start of the hear n response to an undertaking from Hill that only three tippers were ved. Bakers Transport (SouthampLtd. remained the only objector.
J. A. Hill, managing director of Lpplicant concern, explained that in a renewal application in respect of licence made in September, 1963. marked "no modification ", whereas as his intention at that time to aalize a difficult and complex normal position.
tpealing for Bakers Transport, Mr. type questioned Hill regarding the osed sale of individual units from leet and suggested that the purpose c present application was to enhance ;oodwill value of his business. Hill that negotiations had, in fact, been ed into for the sale of five vehicles his intention eventually was to disof about half of his present fleet. e deputy LA intervened to ask Hill was his intention to sell any of the 18 vehicles involved in the current application. Hill said he had no intention of doing this.
In his final submission Mr. Corpe said that for years Hill and Sons had operated this licence with half the vehicles on a normal user of 100 miles and the rest 200 miles. His client would accept a decision along these lines.
In the second application H. Webb and Sons (Marchwood) Ltd.—a company controlled by Mr. J. A. Hill—sought to rationalize a confused normal user position. Mr. A. L. Louth appeared for Webb and Mr. T. Corpe for Bakers Transport (Southampton) Ltd. Bakers were the only objector.
For the applicant Mr. Louth said that the same error had occurred here as in the Hill and Sons application in that the renewal document was completed as " no modification ". On the objector's contention that suitable transport already existed, Mr. Louth pointed out that his client's licence covered locomotives " and he understood that Bakers' licence did not include this class of vehicle. Hill was questioned again concerning the sale of units and he gave a further assurance on this point.
Both Mr. Louth and Mr. Corpe asked that submissions made in the previous case he taken as read. However, Mr. Corpe added that his client would accept a decision restricting three of the 12 Webb vehicles to a normal user." general 'mods. 200 miles".