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
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216 
Haulier Seeks to Carry Return Loads
Page 178
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
rtA RECENT grant by Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, the Northern Licensing Authority, for seven additional vehicles on A licence to Wilfred Whites' Transport Services, Ltd., was cited by Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw as an example of the Transport Tribunal's attitude, when he applied for a B licence vehicle to be placed on an A licence, at Newcastle upon Tyne, last week.
Mr. Wardlaw said the applicant, Mr. Septimus Cook, of Con sett, a brother of Siddle C. Cook, was operating the vehicle under a licence which permitted him to carry road and building materials within 15 miles of base, opencast coal in northwest Durham and goods for Siddle C. Cook, Ltd.
For a number of years the vehicle had been used almost exclusively on subcontract work for Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., hut his client now sought to have the vehicle specified on an A licence so that he could carry remit loads.
Mr. Wardlaw contended that the application was quite sound, in law. The principle affirmed by the Transport Tribunal and by Mr. Hanlon himself, was that if a person were allowed to carry goods outwards and the need were shown, he was entitled to carry return toads.
When Mr. Hanlon questioned this, Mr. Wardlaw referred to Whites' application which, he pointed out, Mr. Hanlon had granted "without, even, a public inquiry."
Mr. I. Robey, representing the British Transport Commission 'who were objecting to the application, interjected and said that Mr. Wardlaw had already referred to Whites' grant on at least two previous occasions before the Deputy Authority. In answer to a auestion by Mr. Hanlon whether there had been an appeal against the grant, Mr. Wardlaw asked, "How can there be an appeal?" Mr. Hanlon replied
that if there had been no appeal, that wa: an end to the matter and it was not decision, that should be quoted in Ate cases.
Mr. Robey explained that Whites application had been published in ail normal way and, because there were n( objections, the grant had been made "is office." Whites' application, he explained sought to authorize additional vehicles t( an existing A licence to carry specia traffics on specially constructed vehicles The grant should not be used as a touch stone in the present application, hi submitted.
Giving evidence, Mr. Septimus Cool said that he operated solely for thi family firm of Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., as sub-contractor carrying long steel all ove the country. Whilst Siddle C. Cool had, on occasions, been able to find return loads for him, this had occasionall; proved difficult. Because of the condition on his licence, he had often had to refusi return loads offered to him, in particula from the B.R.S. depot at Corby.
Extra Work Giving his decision Mr. Hanlon said having regard to the importance whicl was now placed upon declarations o normal user, the application was no substantially such an important matter a it seemed. Whatever conditions tit, vehicle was working under, it could no do much more work, because if it wen carrying a return load, it could not ge home so quickly.
It could, however, be operated mor. economically. Special type vehicles wee. so expensive to buy and to run that thei numbers should be limited as far as pos sible, and they should be operated a economically as possible—a principli that had been well established for years It was proper, therefore, to make a granI subject to amendment of the normal use to "goods for Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., and return loads," and subject to the stir render of the B licence.