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 
Planning proposition 'nonsense'
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The attitude of the Lake District Planning Board to applications for industrial developments in the area was criticized at a public inquiry of the Northern LA at Keswick, Cumberland. R. Furness and Sons (Keswick) Ltd, haulage contractor, was appearing under Section 69 and said that it could not obtain suitable premises to carry out maintenance work. The company's old premises at Keswick had been taken over for a car park, and other later accommodation had been cleared to make way for a new road.
Mr L. C. Garliner, appearing for Furness, said that 12 applications to the Planning Board by the company had been refused. The Board's intention seemed to be to keep industry out of Keswick.
Mr J. A. T. Hanlon, the LA, said he knew of a case where a haulage firm which had operated at Penrith for 30 years had been asked to move to Carlisle about 20 miles away. Mr Hanlon said it was unadulterated nonsense for the planning authority to make such a proposition. If 12 applications for premises to provide maintenance facilities were refused, it was not surprising that vehicles were found to be in a dangerous condition.
Furness said it had devised a new maintenance system and Mr Hanlon said he would not take any action against the company, but would review the position at the end of the year.