AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Objector Deprived of Vital Information

2nd September 1960
Page 29
Page 29, 2nd September 1960 — Objector Deprived of Vital Information
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?

Operator Did Not Know of Rival's Bid for New Service Until After Grant Was Made

BECAUSE inadequate information was published in Notices and Proceedings no objection was entered against an application, with the result that a renewal application was modified by the Northern Traffic Commissioners, at Newcastle upon Tyne, last week.

Mr. J. L. R. Croft, representing Mr. John Murray Smith, Morpeth, Northumberland, said that application had been made by his client to vary a licence for stage operation between Amble and Shilbottle Grange. Northumberland. The application was published in March. No objection was received, and the application was granted in May without a hearing.

The grant was noticed by Mr. H. E. Craiggs, who Was now objecting. He wrote to the Clerk to the Commissioners explaining that he wished to object and was told that as the objection period was passed he could do so only when the licence came up for renewal.

Supporting the renewal application, Cllr. E. A. Allcock, for Amble Urban District Council, said that the area served by the applicant was in process of development, in the course of which many old people had been moved to the new estate. If Smith's service was reduced, it would have a detrimental effect upon the residents. He admitted to Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for Mr. Craiggs, that the objector had provided a town service through Amble for many years whilst Smith had held a licence only for the past five years.

Service 400 yards Away Mr. Alleock agreed that the service operated by Smith was only 400 yards away from Craiggs' route at its farthest point. He also agreed eventually that it was not until after the renewal application had been submitted, and there was an objection, that Smith had approached the council.

Giving evidence, Mr. Smith said that as soon as he received an objection to his renewal application, he had approached the clerk to the council, who had asked him to continue the service and also suggested that he should operate additional week-end services. He told Mr. Wardlaw that he had not mentioned the application to Mr. Craiggs as he had done with previous applications. He had reasons for not expecting an objection because he knew that Mr. Craiggs carried other passengers on a school service between Amble and Shilbottle, he said.

Asked by Mr. Hanlon, chairman, why he had not complained to the Commissioners about this, Mr. Smith said that he did not do such things. Mr. Hanlon then said that he wanted to make it clear that if one operator thought another was not using his vehicles properly, then he should ask the Commissioners to look into the matter.

Mr. Wardlaw suggested that the figures submitted by the applicant demon

strated that there was not room for two services in the town, and the applicant's service was bound to abstract passengers from Mr: Craiggs.

To a submission by Mr. Wardlaw, that there was no case for his client to answer, Mr. Hanlon said that when dealing with a licence renewal without modification during the currency period of the licence, the fact that the vehicles had been operatingwas sufficient to make out a prima facie case.

But, Mr. Wardlaw pointed out, the matter had not been argued before the Commissioners when the variation was made, and there had been no investigation. If there had been, Mr. Wardlaw said, he was sure the Commissioners

would not have granted a second town service as a matter of routine administration.

The publication in Notices and Proceedings to revise the time-table "in accordance with the schedules submitted" was most misleading, and it was because of this that the applicant obtained his grant, continued Mr. Wardlaw.

Referring to the publication, Mr. Hanlon said "I am beginning to wonder whether the Commissioners are in order in publishing something like this without giving some sort of description of what it means."

Giving decision, Mr. Hanlon said that it was obvious that there was not sufficient justification for two operators, and albeit that the local authority had supported the applicant there was no evidence of need. Tte renewal application would be granted but the licence would be modified • to provide only such services as were in operation before the variation grant.


comments powered by Disqus