"Why Should Distant , Haulier Object ? "
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
RTATING that he could not under
stand why a haulier based 30 miles away from an applicant should object. Mr. S. W. Nelson, Western Licensing Authority, last week added a vehicle to the B licence of Mr. P. E. Bennett, 12 St. John's Lane, Eastville, Bristol, to carry general goods, excepting household furniture, with:n 50 miles.
In 1954, the applicant hired transport to the value of £1,566, but so far this year had spent £2,454. Joseph Fish and Sons, Ltd., hauliers, stated that they were finding vehicles difficult to obtain for hire, and supported Mr. Bennett's application.
W. Viney, Ltd., objected. Mr. T. Amblin. managing director, said that his company could provide transport for all the goods mentioned by the appli cant. Mr. Nelson asked why Viney objected.
"Some of my vehicles regularly go to the Midlands, north of England, and to South Wales and Avonmouth," replied Mr. Amblin, "and to do this it is necessary for them to pass through Bristol, and we should have no difficulty at all ip carrying this traffic."
"But surely this should be the Bristol hauliers right? " posed the Authority.
Mr. Amblin disagreed, and pointed out that some Bristol operators' vehicles picked up loads in his area.
Mr. Bennett stated that he did not intend to collect loads from Bruton and Shepton Mallet, and the Authority,• commented that if Mr. Amblin were correct in his outlook it would mean that if one operator applied for a licence, another 100 miles away could object. "The whole thing is absurd," he said.