• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260

Minister Upholds Leeds Decision

Zoom page

6th May 1960

Page 71

Page 71, 6th May 1960 — Minister Upholds Leeds Decision

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?

Please select an option... Headline has errors Article text has errors Article is incomplete Submit

AN appeal by the Farsley Omnibus Co., Ltd., Leeds, 2, against the decision of the Yorkshire Traffic Cornmissioners granting Leeds Corporation consent to run public service vehicles on the Ring Road, between New Road Side, Horsforth. and Rodley Lane, Pialsey, has been disallowed by the Minister of Transport.

The corporation put forward two distinct types of Service in support of their application. The first was from the south-western end of the road concerned along the northern part of the existing Ring Road, and the second was a general scheme round the whole of the Ring Road on its completion.

Agreeing with the inspector, the Minister, in his decision, held that the Commissioners could not properly found a grant of the consent applied for by the corporation without further consents in respect of the incomplete portion of the Ring Road, to which there might well he other objectors. The acceptance of these services as a ground for the grant of consent might prejudice further consent applications.

So far as the northern part of the Ring Road was concerned, the Minister did not share the inspector's view that to show that a service would necessarily be operated solely by the corporation was adequate justification for a grant of consent.

This attitude would impose altogether too high a requirement. On this basis, evidence which would suffice to establish a claim to a share of services on a road service licence application might be held to be inadequate to justify the consent. This would be unjust.

Bearing in mind that the application was for a consent only, and not for a road service licence, the Minister concluded that the evidence showed that the service in question would supply a public need and the corporation would have a good claim to provide it in whole or in part.

lie held that the appellants had not succeeded in showing that the Commissioners were wrong to grant the consent on the basis of the evidence. His decision implied no opinion whether road service licences should be granted or whether further consents should • be granted to enable a general scheme of Ring Road services to be introduced by the corporation.