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
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258 
Mr. C. R. Beddin g ton, for Pitters, maintained that the definition
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
depended on the height Of the loading surface from the ground. Mr. Baker was also concerned at the growth of Pitters' 'cable-carrying traffic, for which, he 'said, the new vehicle Was being consistently used. Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, for Bakers, said that a new type of vehicle had been put on the road carrying additional, as well as different, traffic, and the Licensing Authority had not been notified. Mr. Kenneth Pitter agreed that at a previous application in 1959 his company had agreed to delete the word " cable " from the description of general user, as a condition of Bakers Transport withdrawing an objection. But they had made it quite clear that, while their principal business was the transport of fruit and vegetables, they intended to continue carrying cable as they had done in the past, provided it did not exceed 10 per cent, of the total gross turnover. Mr. Pitter agreed also that the carriage of cable had substantially increased, but estimates for 1962-3 showed it still would not amount to 10 per cent. The Authority, Mr. H. J. Thom, said that Pitter Bros. had been less than frank in describing the trailer. To describe it as a platform vehicle was misleading to potential objectors. On the other hand, • he was satisfied that there was very little, if any, increased capacity as a result of using the vehicle, though it did afford the possibility of carrying cable drums of greater height. To revoke the licence in respect of this vehicle and call upon the operators to apply for a new licence Would be inconvenient to both operators and customers. taking into account the company's excellent record, he had, therefore, decided to publish the grant of a licence for the vehicle in question with either a semi-low-loader or a platform trailer, at the same time warning operators that he would not accept any misdescription in future. Dealing with the declaration of normal user, Mr. Thom said it would not be a good thing if operators had to describe practically all the traffic which they carried; that would be tantamount to turning an A licence into a kind of B licence. He granted Pitter Brothers' application to vary the A licence to allow a vehicle of a greater weight to operate on a trunk service carrying fruit and vegetables between Southampton and Birmingham.