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 
CARRIAGE FOR SUBSIDIARIES REASONABLE WITHIN LIMITS
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
RE was no reason why the vehicles of a parent company should not carry traffic of rassociated businesses within limits, even if it did mean some minor loss of employment for local hauliers specializing in the traffic concerned.
So said West Midland LA Mr. J. Else, making a limited grant to Youell and Co., builders and contractors, of Coventry, at Birmingham last week. Youell sought to switch seven tippers from C to B licence, to carry excavated material, spoil, rubbish and builder's materials.
However, the LA reduced the number to four, to carry excavated materials, spoil and the like for Star Civil Engineering and Sterling Plant Hire Ltd. within 25 miles. Seven tipper operators objected.
Mr. G. T. Goodman, Youell's general manager, said the firm had 14 vehicles on C licence and one trailer. At times several of these vehicles were not fully utilized. Youell's two associated businesses had no lorries of their own and had difficulty in hiring.
The present situation was that Sterling hired out excavators, road rollers, etc., to contractors and roadmakers and local hauliers removed rubbish and spoil from the sites. But if some of the Youell vehicles were authorized to carry out this function, an all-in rate for excavating and removal of rubbish could be quoted.
Cross-examined by Mr. Carless Jnr., for the objectors, on the functions of Star Civil Engineering, Mr. Goodman explained it was a roadmaking concern with a small supervisory staff, taking on extra Labour for individual contracts.
Mr. M. A. Johnson, director and general manager of Sterling, said that in the last six months he had received 38 enquiries for plant with a lorry, and in 17 cases business had been lost because of inability to provide a vehicle.
Although he admitted that he should have been a proper objector but heard about theapplication too late, Mr. A. G. Dyke, a director of S.D. Supplies and Smith Bros. (Tamworth) Ltd., which between them operated 30 tippers, was allowed to give evidence on behalf of one of the objectors.
He felt that a grant of seven vehicles would take away business from bona-fide public carriers. The profit margin the applicants were stated to be working on was not sufficient, he claimed.
Mr. Carless said that if a grant was made his clients would not be needed by Youell or its associated companies. They had shown in evidence that they had spare capacity.
Giving his decision, Mr. Else pointed out that Mr. Goodman had undertaken not to apply for further C licences, and had stated that his firm had no intention of entering the haulage business proper.