AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Non-publication Averted Objection

26th August 1960, Page 40
26th August 1960
Page 40
Page 40, 26th August 1960 — Non-publication Averted Objection
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THE non-publication of an application by Associated Motorways, for the extension of a Cheltenham-Coventry express journey to Leicester, in 1959, did not give Wainfleet Motor Services, Ltd., Oaston Road, Nuneaton, a chance to object. The West Midland Traffic Commissioners were told this, at Birmingham, on Monday, when Wainfleet opposed the backing application for renewal of the licence.

Mr. T. D. Corpe, for the applicants, said that the primary renewal in the Western Traffic Area was unopposed and the backing in the East Midland Traffic Area had been granted, despite objections by Wainfleet. The licence had been held since the company's formation in 1934.

Daily services were operated throughout the year between CheltenhamMansfield, Cheltenham-Nottingham and, in the summer season, between Cheltenham-Leicester. The services of Wainfleet were mainly confined to Saturdays in the peak holiday weeks. The only common picking-up points in the West Midland traffic area were Nuneaton and Bedworth, and through fares to Torquay, Bournemouth, Weymouth and Eastbourne were higher than those of Wainffeet.

Mr. W. Coombes, secretary of Associated Motorways, answering Mr. D. Skelding, for Wainfleet, said that during last summer, of 2,372 passengers carried on the extended journey, only 110 were from Nuneaton and Bedworth. Although no notice of the 1959 application had been sent to Wainfleet, results had proved the wisdom of the Traffic Commissioners' decision.

Mr. Skelding said that in view of the evidence the objection would not be pursued.

Granting the application, Mr. W. P. James, chairman, said that it was regrettable that the Leicester application had been dealt with by notification to possible objectors rather than by publication. Future applications of this nature should be published, he concluded.


comments powered by Disqus