AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Mid-Southern Heavily Opposed

8th October 1965, Page 52
8th October 1965
Page 52
Page 52, 8th October 1965 — Mid-Southern Heavily Opposed
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?

THE Mid-Southern Tipping Group's support of 29 operators, who sought to carry excavated road-building materials within 150 miles and salt (for road clearance) from ICI within 200 miles, was heavily contested at Hove on Monday. It was the second day's hearing before the Southern Eastern deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. J. Shepherd.

The case continued on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Mr. R. Yorke, for Mid-Southern, presented 48 documents supporting the application and said that cuttings from the trade Press over the past five years were included: these indicated that tipper operations in many areas were unsatisfactory. Representing a large number of southern counties operators, Miss E. Havers submitted that Press cuttings were of little interest and should not be included, but the deputy LA ruled that they were admissible evidence.

Supporting the application, Mr. F. H. Walker, of the Monmouth division of ICI (Northwich), said that 36,000 tons of salt out of 773,000 tons sold to local authorities this year should have been delivered by September and of this 9,000 tons referred to southern counties. ICI supported variation applications to enable operators to carry salt as back loads.

Mr. V. Hammond, site agent on a trunk road project at Monmouth for Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Ltd., spoke of difficulty in hiring tipping vehicles in the quarrying area. Mid-Southern had supplied six vehicles, Mr. Hammond continued, and maintenance arrangements were satisfactory.


comments powered by Disqus