Amberley Farmer Fails To Get Goods Licence

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30919, 27 November 1965, Page 21

Amberley Farmer Fails To Get Goods Licence

An application by James McKinlay Gardiner, a farmer, of Amberley, for a new continuous goods service licence was refused by the No. 9 Transport Licensing Authority (Mr J. S. Haywood) in a recent reserved decision. Gardiner (Mr H. W. Hunter) applied on October 28 for a new continuous goods sendee licence, with one vehicle authority, for the cartage of wool, grain and seeds, being the applicant’s own goods, from Scargill to Christchurch, and backloading of his own general farm merchandise. Exemption from Railways restriction was sought. The Railways department (Mr F. D. Daly) objected to the application. In his reserved decision, the Authority said Gardiner had to replace his present truck, and wished to operate one which was not restricted to six and a half tons gross laden weight. “I am satisfied that the applicant and his three sons are amongst the few fanners able to use efficiently and economically a heavy trade vehicle,” the Authority said. “Invariably I find applica-

tions of this nature cause me somewhat anxious consideration. in this case, the applicant would succeed upon his merits, provided the danger of precedent could be avoided beyond reasonable doubt “As far as he cares to use them, the applicant has the advantage of a main and a branch railway line. He does not suffer the disadvantage of isolation with respect to long distance from rail. “I may observe that the Railways have played an important part in primary industry from the early development of the country and continue to do so. In the South Island various factors prevent a working profit in rail services, as shown by a working loss of £2,096,350 for the year ended March 31, 1965. On the contrary, in the North Island the position is usually reversed. The applicant did not suffer hardship relevant to rail restriction, the Authority said. “Mr Gardiner is a truthful witness. I accept his evidence, but it does not satisfy me that a grant is desirable in the public interest. My duty is to refuse the application, and I do so accordingly.”