Miller's Lose Two Camp Services
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Two Out of Three Appeal Decisions Unfavourable to Road Operators 0 N an appeal by the Railway Executive, the Minister of. Transport has revoked a licence granted to Messrs. G. J. Miller and Sons in November, 1952, permitting them to operate express services from South Cerney R.A.F. station to London and _Cardiff. A service to Birmingham was allowed, the appellants having admitted that on some occasions accommodation on trains to Birmingham was inadequate.
An important ruling on the right of appeal of a local authority against a decision of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority has been made by the Minister in favour of Guildford Borough Council. Hitherto, Section 98 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, has been interpreted as precluding a municipal authority from appealing against decisions made by that Authority, but.the Minister has now ruled that Guildford had the right of appeal under Section 81 (1) (b) of the Act, which provides for an appeal by " a local authority which ., . . hasz opposed the grant or variation of a'.
road service IiCenee." . .
Undertaking that they would improve the extent of their advertising and consider reducing their fares, Green and Cream Coaches, Ltd., have had allowed their appeal against the decision of the Western Licensing Authority refusing to grant them a licence to continue to operate excursions and tours, although the number of these has been reduced.
Convenience No Justification
N their appeal, heard at Gloucester on I March 31, against the granting of a licence to Messrs. G. J. Miller and Sons by the Western Licensing Authority to operate camp services to Cardiff, London and Birmingham, the Railway Executive, said Mr. M. Holmes, were concerned chiefly with the question whether the Authority was right in disregarding figures of train loadings given at the original hearing.
Against statements then made by R.A.F. personnel, alleging that they had had to stand on certain trains from Paddington and Cardiff, the Executive had produced figures to show that there were many vacant seats. The Authority would not accept the figures, and refused an adjournment to allow the appellants to bring evidence to support them.
Mr. Holmes admitted that on some occasions the accommodation an trains from Birmingham was inadequate, and said that the railways did not expect to succeed in their appeal against the licensing of a coach service to Birmingham.
Mr, P. D, Clarke, for Miller's, con sidered that as there was positive evidence that airmen had had to stand on train journeys, the loading figures produced by the appellants had been rightly disregarded. It was incredible, he said, that if seats were vacant, railway officials should not inform standing passengers. If they failed to do this, the railways must be considered unsuitable.
Apart from that, the cost of travel must be considered in comparison with the airmen's incomes. They could not afford meals on the railway, and they slept better when travelling by road.
Recommending that the licence be revoked, except in respect of the service
to Birmingham, Mr. E. C. P. Lascelles,
a Ministry of Transport inspector, said that there was no suggestion that the road services offered any advantages in time, and that the differences in fares did not justify the licensing of express Services.
He agreed that the inconvemence caused to airmen in basting to change from road to rail (until the granting of the licence Miller's were providing a feeder service to railheads at Cheltee ham, Swindon and Gloucester), the cost of meals on the railway, and the alleged better opportunity for sleeping in coaches, were not sufficient grounds for continuing the licence.
Although the evidence of seats on trains was conflicting, he did not dis
regard the figures submitted by the Executive, and there seemed to be no justification for continuing the licence on the allegation of overcrowded trains.
Right of Appeal Upheld
I N the case between the Borough of Guildford and the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, an inquiry into the appeal was held by Mr. J. M. Glen
at Guildford on February 12. The council was appealing against a decision of the Authority to allow Aldershot and District Traction Co., Ltd., to use double-deckers on their stage service between Guildford and Belltields Estate, a service on which there was a railway bridge with an overhanging parapet.
Submitting that local authorities in the Metropolitan Area were not allowed to object within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, Mr. S. Cushman. for Aldershot and District, disputed the corporation's right to appeal.
The Minister of Transport has, however, now ruled that Guildford had a right to appeal, and as the margin of safety for double-deckers under the bridge was considered too narrow, he has ordered that the sanction be cancelled.
Operators Must Advertise Tours
APPEALING against the refusal by the Western Licensing Authority to renew a licence of Green and Cream Coaches, Ltd_, authorizing them to operate tours from Cullompton, Mr. T. D. Corpe, at an inquiry held at Exeter on May 1, said that his clients were granted their first licence for excursions and tours in January, 1950. Twelve tours were covered by the licence, and three more were added later.
with a number of other
interested parties, Mr. R. C. Hatton had unsuccessfully objected to the application at the time, and when Green and Cream Coaches applied for renewal in October, 1952, Mr. Hatton had again objected, this time on the ground that the applicants had failed to operate their licence to the full extent.
On that occasion, the application was refused, but one by Mr. Hatton to pick up at Cullompton on tours on which the town was on the authorized route, was granted. Mr. Corpe stressed that his clients were not appealing against the grant to Mr. Hatton.
For Mr. Hatton, Mr. G. McMurtrie
said that it was the fundamental duty of a licensed operator to use his licence reasonably and to afford the facilities which the Licensing Authority considered desirable. He submitted that it was an inherent condition that an operator should make known his facilities to the public, and produced newspaper cuttings showing what his client had done to advertise his excursions and tours.
Mr. Corpe produced figures sheaving that his clients were catering satisfactorily for the inhabitants of Cullompton—so much so, indeed, that some services were operated at a loss. He submitted that in the matter of advertising, Cullompton was a small town and it could be assumed that intereeted persons would not require long notice of tours.
There was no condition that operators must advertise their services in the Press. In his observations, Mr. J. M. Glen said that whilst he agreed to some extent with the decision of the Authority, he felt that the appellants were guilty of inexperience in operating rather than wilful neglect.
He suggested that in view of the appellants' record, their licence be renewed for a shorter period than usual. When they applied for a further renewal, they would have to show improved advertising arrangements and better achievement in the operation of excursions and tours.