THE QUESTION OF THE LONDON-GUILDFORD ROUTE
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An Appeal Brings to Light Methods of Issuing Coach-. set-vice Licences AW days ago an appeal was heard at Guildford by Mr.-N. A. J. Cohen, barrister-at-law, on behalf of the Minis try of Transport, against the refusal of Guildford Corporation to grant licences to the Premier Omnibus Co., Ltd., of London, in connection with a coach service between London and Guildford.
Mr. P. B. Showan appeared for the Premier Co., and explained that on February 22nd, 19:30, the company applied to the corporation for 12 licences for hackney carriages to be employed on this route, the application being refused on March 24th. Mr. Showan did not attempt to press the contention that there was not an adequate service between the two towns, his point being that another operator had been allowed to commence a service at a date subsequent to that on which the appellant company had been refused. Renewed applications were made in July and August, and these were not granted.
Mr. Gray, of the Premier Omnibus Co, Ltd., was then called, and stated B38 that when, on February 22nd, 1930, he applied for the licences above referred to, only one service, that of the Skylark Motor Coach Co., Ltd., was operating on the route, that company's service being an hourly one. The Premier concern proposed to operate a half-hourly service of coaches between London and Guildford.
The Chief Constable was called upon to give evidence, and said that an application for licences for 12 coaches was made by the London General Omnibus Co., Ltd., on the day before that on which the Premier Co.'s application was lodged, viz., February 21st, 1930. It was refused. The L.G.O.Co., Ltd., renewed the application some time later, and in June was granted by Guildford Corporation licences for 16 vehicles. The Town Clerk stated that at the time of the appellant company's first application there were five motorbus companies running altogether 84 'Vaud-down services per day and, additionally, there were 163 up-and-down train services. The L.G.O.Co., Ltd., was sanctioned in June to put on 65 services per day, whilst the addition of through services from Portsmouth made a total of 155 services at the time when the Premier Co. renewed its application, i.e., in July and August.
In questioning the Chief Constable, Mr. Showan asked whether it was the opinion of the watch committee that an extra demand had arisen for facilities on the route, and that it ought to be satisfied by the granting of extra licences to an existing company. He referred, of course, to the existing motorbus services operated by the L.G.O.Co., Ltd. The Chief Constable replied that that was the opinion ef the watch committee.
The result of the inquiry will be pub lished in due course.