AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal to Consider Goods Licence Backings

25th October 1963
Page 31
Page 31, 25th October 1963 — Tribunal to Consider Goods Licence Backings
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

TWO APPEALS AND AN APPLICATION HAVE RECENTLY BEEN HEARI) CONCERNING LICENSING FOR WORK EMANATING OUTSIDE THE OPERATOR'S BASE IN its appeal session a fortnight ago the Transport Tribunal heard two appeals concerning the licensing of vehicles primarily required to work in traffic areas other than those in which the vehicles were based. In each case judgment was adjourned and, at the time of writing, no decisions have been given.

The first case was an appeal by H. R. D. Maconochie Ltd. and W. L. Roebuck. Ltd. against the grant of a lowloader switch from C to B licence by the North Western deputy Licensing Authority; Mr. A. H. Iolliffe. • The conditions granted on the licence . were: " Road construction plant from and to sites within 75 miles for Prestwick Macadam Ltd., Sheffield, at sites at which both companies were working ". In making the grant, Mr. Jolliffe-authorized vehicles to operate in the Yorkshire area.

A 'Previous. Judgment

Mr. J. R. C. Samue!-Gibbon, for the appellants, drew the Tribunal's attention to a previous judgment, given by the Tribunal under Sir Hubert Hull's presidency—The B.T.C. and King—which said: "We have already said elsewhere that licensing authorities ought to be slow, generally speaking, to deal with the transport requirements of persons in another area for the obvious reason that it is more likely. that the licensing authority of that area will know better whether there is a need for additional facilities".

In the King appeal the Tribunal had recommended that in such cases it would be as well if the licensing authority concerned was to take sOme steps to ensure that publicity was given in other areas to the fact that he was about to consider the requirements of those areas.

Mr. Samuel-Gibbon pointed out to the Tribunal, however, that there was no statutory procedure for republication of applications made to one L.A. in another's area—a submission hacked up by the advocate appearing for the respondent, Mr. E. Taylor, who said that if the licensing authority in the "work area" refused to publish an application, for the protection of hauliers who may be affected in his area, then there was nothing that could be done about it, even by the Tribunal.

The Second Appeal

The second appeal was by a West Midland-based haulier, Carman's Transport Ltd., of Scholar Green, Staffs. The cOmpany was appealing because the deputy L.A. had refused to add five vans to an A licence because all the evidence related to work outside the area, including Dagenham, Slough and Continental ,traffic. If the deputy L.A.'s contention was right, Mr. Samuel-Gibbon submitted, ..then Carman's could not do its existing customers work without setting up'new bases.

Appearing for the British Railways Board against Carman's, Mr. A. J. F. Wrottesley said that it could_ be argued that the difficulty could be overcome by hauliers throughout the country having copies of all Applications and Decisions (which, by the way, would cost him its. a week). Mr.. Wrottesley added that a licensing authority had power to ensure publication -in other areas if he thought lit.

If Mr. Wrottesley is right 'then, presumably, the Tribunal Wilt direct republication and say under what section of the Act it is acting. But if Mr. Samuel-Gibbon's contention is right, then the Tribunal can only follow Sir Hubert Hull's King appeal judgment and suggest that licensing authorities should take steps to ensure that publicity is given in other areas,


comments powered by Disqus