1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
Golden Miller tours 'misleading'
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The original character of the proposed tours, claimed by Golden Miller as one of the reasons why its tours application should be granted, "can be dismissed in a sentence-, said Mr. W. M. Levitt, deputy chairman of the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioners, in a written decision last week.
Mr. Levitt said that as the public inquiry progressed—it lasted five days—it became evident that there was nothing original about the tours, except for the titles "which were often seriously misleading".
Golden Miller, of Fe!them, Middlesex, had applied for 27 tours and excursions starting from Hanworth, with feeder services from Charlton and Fe!them. Valliant Cronshaw Ltd., Southdown Motor Services Ltd., Western National Omnibus Co. Ltd., Duval and Son Ltd., Kingston Luxury Coaches Ltd., Conway Hunt Ltd. and H. and G. Beach Ltd. had all objected.
A lot of time was wasted during the hearing because details of the proposed tours were often misleading, said Mr, Levitt. -The precise proposals were never completely clear and were changed repeatedly in the course of Mr. J. H. Fielder's evidence", he said.
Mr. Fielder represented Golden Miller at the hearing.
The claim that the populations of Hanworth, Fe[them and Charlton had increased was true, said Mr. Levitt, but it was only a modest increase.
Mr. Levitt said that if Golden Miller had been able to prove its claim that the area it proposed to serve was a "no-man's land without adequate facilities", then under Section 135(2 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 it would have gone a long way to satisfy the grant.
It was clear, he concluded, that most of the witnesses who gave evidence in support of the application did so only because of the popularity of Golden Miller's stage services.