AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Guidance for Evidence Required to Meet Future Needs

5th June 1964, Page 52
5th June 1964
Page 52
Page 52, 5th June 1964 — Guidance for Evidence Required to Meet Future Needs
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

GUIDANCE on how to present applications for facilities that are required to meet a future demand was given by the Transport Tribunal in its judgment in the "sludge disposals" appeal—the appeal of H. and A. Trotter, of Calthwaite, near Fenrith, against the refusal of the Northern Licensing Authority to grant a B licence to carry farm effluent within a radius of 50 miles. (The Commercial Molor, May 22).

During the appeal, counsel Mr. Richard Yorke, for Trotter, suggested that regard ought to be had to needs that were likely to arise in the future, and submitted that it would be wrong to refrain from issuing any licence until actual difficulties arose because of a lack of facilities.

The Tribunal dealt with this specific point. After saying that the evidence in the case fell short of proving a need such as would justify the granting of the licence sought, the Tribunal said this: "We agree that regard ought to be had to potential needs in the near future.... An application for a grant of a licence to meet a future need ought to be supported by evidence of considerable particularity both as to the extent of the need and the time at which it can be expected to arise."

The basis of the application was the coming into operation of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961, which made it necessary for farmers to have effluent tanks, and to have them emptied and the effluents disposed of, in order to avoid contraventions of the Act.

Evidence was given, however, that the introduction of the Act would not cause every farmer to need the services of a carrier to dispose of the effluents.

Two potential customers gave evidence —one of whom said that he would not use the respondent, Sludge Disposals Ltd., because he regarded their charges as exorbitant (although he had never approached them for a quotation). The other "direct" witness would give his work either to the appellants or the respondents, depending on Which would do it more cheaply. He was ;supporting the application so that there .would be two competitive operators in the area.

The Tribunal, in ,its judgment, was able to put the Northern • Licensing Authority right on one pOint for which he was criticized by Mr. Yorke during the hearing of the appeal. Mr. Hanlon had said, in his decision, that it was clearly laid down in the 1960 Act that a newcomer to the industry must not only show that people were willing and able to employ him, but he must show. by calling evidence, that the work could not reasonably be done by existing hauliers.

The Tribunal pointed out that Mr. Hanlon was wrong on two counts. First, the 1960 Act drew no distinction between newcomers and established hauliers. Secondly, it was not incumbent upon an applicant to prove that the work could not reasonably be done by existing hauliers. This reversed the onus of proof cast upon objectors by .section 173(5) of the 1960 Act.


comments powered by Disqus