AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Not Enough Evidence, says Mr. Hanlon

27th August 1965, Page 33
27th August 1965
Page 33
Page 33, 27th August 1965 — Not Enough Evidence, says Mr. Hanlon
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?

BECAUSE of the special needs when licensing low-loaders, more cogent evidence was needed in support, said Mr. .1, A. T. Hanlon, the Northern Licensing Authority, last week when he refused an application by J. and W. Robson Ltd. for a B licence to operate an articulated 12-ton low-loader within 30 miles of Whitehaven.

For the applicants, builders and plant suppliers of Whitehaven, Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw said that the application was first heard on July 29, when Mr. Hanlon indicated that if it were to succeed he would require actual evidence.

Regretting that he was not in a position to call evidence, Mr. Wardlaw added that he had letters from George Wimpey and Co. Ltd. and Mr. F. L. Broughton. Cumberland County Council surveyor, on the potential usefulness of such a vehicle. There were no small low-loaders of the type requested in industrial West Cumberland. where 25-tonners were not always suitable.

Objecting for Seymour Bros.. Carlisle, and Robinsons Transport. Carlisle, Mr. W. McKnight Bell said they had lowloaders available which were not worked to excess.


comments powered by Disqus