TRANSPORT APPEALS

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 33, 8 August 1934, Page 11

TRANSPORT APPEALS

BOARD'S DECISIONS

Three appeals, all from decisions of the No. 6 Licensing Authority, >; .werc heard by the Transport Co-ordination BoaTd yesterday and dcterinined today.

In the case of M. J. McLeavey, of Tokornaru, the board allowed his appeal against a condition restricting him to the carriage of produce from a-particu-lar mai-ket garden, and benzine and oil for his own use. The board regarded the service as a quite useful and'necessary one to the market gardeners in tho whale district, and one, moreover, of'a typo that tho railways; could not give satisfactorily. It. was: considered uneconomic that the truck should be compelled to return empty from Wellington after each trip, or, in tho alternative, that the proprietor should have to purchase goods to bo sold piecemeal to his clients. It was evident that a .substantial quantity of goods was being delivered from Wellington to clients of the appellant in tho -district which he .served, for the carriage of which: no; other service- seemed to 'cater so economically. The appeal was accordingly allowed, tho licence to bo restricted to the carriage of market garden produce on the iuwaTd journey to Wellington and to be a route licence with a right to deviate not more than two miles off the main road. The appellant was also given the right to carry ' seeds and manures for market gardeners along the: route, and goods consigned to elionts on the route by Wright, Stephenson, ana Co. ": ■

j. 3?:' 'Clqghorn, of Mangamutu, was successful in his appeal against a refusal to allow an increase in the weight of goods, permitted to bo carried by his trucks;, under his vehicle authority. In 1 its judgment the board stated that it was considered economically unsound as a general rule for vehicles to be restricted as to the ear-, liage of loads to a greater extent than the limit imposed by the heavy traffic regulations, for. otherwise there must bo much wasted running. "Where a vehicle' was travelling regularly - it seemed clear it would bo cheapest in the end for it to travel fully loaded, except when special circumstances indicated a different course. _ No such circumstances seemed to exist in the appellant's case. The boai'd thought also that any. restriction which prevented an operator from developing his fleet to tho limits which those regulations allowed would generally bo unnecessarily vesatiou's. The gradual replacement of unsuitable vehicles by others of a more modern type and design, would load to cheaper transport, and that, would bo encouraged by allowing operators more margin in which lo build up their fleets. There was no question in the appellant's ease of tiny increase in the number of vehicles, as to which quito different considerations might apply. Similar views were expressed by the board in. allowing an appeal by McLeavey and Bolf, of To Horo, against a decision refusing to allow an increase in weight under an authority.