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 
Grant Without Calling Objectors
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AFTER hearing the applicant's evidence and without calling on the
objectors, the We Licensing Authority last week stated that he thought that S.C.C. Transport (Devizes), Ltd., who sought an A licence for three vehicles, had made out a case for not more than one.
After an adjournment the objectors agreed, and the Authority granted a licence for an articulated vehicle of 61 tons unladen. The company withdrew their application for the other two vehicles.
The lorry was required to carry general goods, mainly livestock, animal feeding stuffs, grain, seeds, fertilizers, milk, milk produce and agricultural requisites, normally within a radius of 20 miles.
Mr. R. Sawtell, of Sawtell, Ltd., said that he wished S.C.C. Transport to carry feathers, mainly. to Manchester and Newcastle upon Tyne. This traffic had gone by rail but it had become neces sary to deliver within 24 hours, a facility which the railways were unable to give. The applicants' rates were also cheaper than those of the railways, he added.
Mr. W. Street, transport manager of Messrs. Wallace Sons and Wells, corn merchants, Reading, said that it was important to employ a haulier whose drivers knew how to handle their traffic. He had used the British Road Services depot at Reading, but had made many complaints to them about delays in returning documents.
Witness said that he was supporting S.C.C. Transport because B.R.S. could not do his work. Other witnesses represented the Lever Bros. and Samuel Moore concerns, and Chippenharn market, the superintendent of which, Mr. R. McD. Parkhouse, stated that there had been a steady increase in work.
The objectors were B.R.S., the railways and Western Transport, Ltd,