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 
Tribunal Upholds Appeal Against Dumpster Grant
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
PAA S a result of a decision by the Transport Tribunal in London last week, Cleansing Services (Southern Counties) Ltd. of Botley, Hants, will have to withdraw its Dempster Dumpster refuse collecting vehicle within a fortnight.
The Tribunal reversed a decision 'of the Western Licensing Authority, who last September granted Cleansing Services a B Licence for the vehicle to operate within a -50-mile radius of Box (Wilts).
R. C. E. Hutton Ltd., and three other hauliers; all from Bristol, in which area the vehicle was being . operated, had appealed against the Authority's decision.
President of the Tribunal, Mr. G. D. Squibb, said if The Licensing Authority was wrong in granting the application merely, as appears to be the.case, because he thought that [his new method of refuse collection should be encouraged ".
Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, counsel for Cleansing Services, said the company had acquired eight new customers and 18 containers, since the licence was granted. Mr. Squibb allowed 14 days for alternative arrangements to be made.
Mr. M. McGregor-Johnson, for the other three appellants, said that if his appeal was dismissed then basically there would be no licensing system. The case was of the highest importance. His grounds of appeal were that Cleansing Services had not proved a need for the vehicle, that no customer was called to give evidence, that the grant would cause wasteful competition, and that the decision was made against the weight of evidence. He added that the only evidence called before the Authority by Cleansing Services were letters.
Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said the Authority was entitled to consider, when he was dealing with an improvement in method, evidence of a much smaller degree than would be necessary in an application for additional vehicles which would be put into a pool to abstract given work from given customers.
In announcing the Tribunal's decision,
Mr. Squibb said: In our view, it would he entirely wrong to depart from the recognized prineipJes on which a licence is granted merely because what is being sought is a licence for some new or improved method of operation."
He added: "We consider the evidence produced before the Licensing Authority was quite insufficient to justify the grant of a licence for whatever kind of vehicle it was proposed to work."