"Father Refused to Apply for Coast Excursions," Commissioners Told
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE three brothers who now direct
Sansom Bros. (Sheffield), Ltd., told the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners, last week, that their father had consistently refused to apply for coastal destinations when he was alive, although he had operated regularly to holiday resorts before 1930.
. Because he had not approached the Traffic Commissioners, they said, the company now had no licences for excursions to the coast, yet they operated there extensively by private hire. Sansom's were asking for the addition of eight eastand west-coast excursions to their licence.
There were -objections from Sharpe Bros. (Beighton), Ltd.; Grant and McAllin, Ltd.; C. G. Littlewood, Ltd.; Hirst and Sweeting. Ltd.; Park Garage (Swallownest), Ltd.; Sheffield United Tours, Ltd.; Sheffield Corporation; Sheffield Joint Omnibus committee, and British Railways.
First Licence in 1937
Mr. J. Evans, for the applicants, said the company's first licence, for angling excursions, was obtained in 1937, soon after the father's death. In 1954 they were granted five circular tours, despite opposition from S.U.T.. =I two years later these were increased to j6, out there were no coastal excursions. There was a great demand for all the destinations now being sought. Mr. Evans -pointed out that in the Handsworth area, 5,276 new houses and six new factories had been built since the war. The present population was nearly 17,000, and the company contended thai Handsworth should have its own excursion service. It was a hardship for pea* to have to travel into Sheffield.
For the independent objectors, Mr. Alan Goss said the recent increase of population in liandsworth was largely due to outspill from Sheffield. If new operators were to be licensed in each suburban area as more people moved out, operators in the city centre might as well close down. There was a good and fre
quent service into Sheffield, and a grant would abstract traffic the objectors could ill afford to lose.
Mr. W. Hargrave, for S.U.T., submitted that the 1954 application was based on short, cheap, non-competitive trips, whilst that in 1956 was said to be for tours which would avoid encroaching on those operated by anyone else. Now, however, Sal150111'S were asking for the most popular destinations in the whole schedule.
A Sheffield city councillor, who supported the application, said that although there was a 10-minute bus service into Sheffield. the vehicles travelled in convoys and seldom ran to schedule. Answering Maj. F. S. Eastwood, chairman, he said no complaint had been made to the transport committee.
The hearing was adjourned.