Gillingham operator's 0-licence renewal opposed
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by CM reporter A GILLINGHAM operator seeking renewal of its 0 licence last week accused the borough council of "using a back-door method of enforcing Town and Country planning legislation."
The accusation was made by Maj S. G. Champion, appearing for Maylen Storage and Warehousing Ltd, at Maidstone. The hearing lasted all day and was adjourned.
Gillingham Borough Council opposed the renewal of Maylen's 0-licence for 45 vehicles and 38 trailers (eight vehicles and 12 trailers to be acquired) under Schedule 4, Section 2, of the 1974 Road Traffic Act, giving the Authority the right to question the suitability of the operating centre in relation to the vehicles employed. (The licence expired last July 31).
The Maidstone hearing revealed the fears of the TGWU that a refusal of the 0-licence renewal application could have a serious effect on the employment of 50 or 60 Maylen staff. Mr R. E. Clayton, district officer of the TGWU, declared that the Maylen maintenance facilities and records were first class ; the company, he said, did not overload its vehicles or encourage drivers to exceed the speed limits.
Maj Champion said the application was for no more vehicles than already authorised and for six extra trailers. Mr A. J. Broome represented Gillingham Borough Council.
Major Champion said there had been a letter from the borough council to a previous owner of businesses on the Maylen depot site, written around 1966, which had referred to a wish of the council to acquire the land •as a public open space under powers given by the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937. From that time on, said Maj Champion, there had been attempts to eject the occupying company.
Mr Leonard Le Warne, Maylen's managing director, said 42 vehicles were operated in August 1974 but their number had fallen to 33 because of the recession. Four new vehicles would be coming to the fleet if the licence was granted.
Mr Le Warne said 28 houses were being erected opposite the depot, but access to and egress from the depot was adequate.
Cross-examined by Mr Broome, Mr Le Warne agreed that he •had drawn the attention of the council in 1972 to its right to object to the issue of an 0-licence under the Transport Act 1968 provisions. He had done this an the suggestion of the RHA.
Mr Le Warne said his company had the exclusive use of three parking areas at the plant of Bowaters, for whom contract work was undertaken. He denied that any of Maylen's general haulage vehicles were parked on Bowater premises.
Mr W. J. Vynall, a DoE engineer, said Maylen vehicles and trailers he had inspected at the depot, and their records, were all satisfactory. The existing maintenance premises could cope with the proposed fleet size.
The possibility of alternative land being made available for a new Maylen depot was referred to by Mr B. Kingsley Smith, a Gillingham solicitor advising the company. The Redland Brick Company, he said might be prepared to make land adjacent to its Vineyard Pit available — possibly at £30,000 an acre, with drainage costs extra.