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 
NIGHT CLUB RUN LICENCE REFUSED
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN APPLICATION by S. A. Bebb Ltd of Llandwit Fartre, South Wales was ill-founded it was claimed because one road service licence could not cover excursions and tours starting from seven different points. The application was refused.
The company had applied to run from Bridgend, Maerey, Trieherbert, Senghenybb, Cwmdach, Dowlais, Tredegar Clock to Wales' largest night club, the Double Diamond at Caerphilly. There were objections from nine independent operators from Llanelli, Swansea, Bridgend, Tredegar and Merthyr.
Before the applicants case was opened, Mr R. Craddick, for the objectors, submitted that the application should have been for seven licences and that a single application was bad in law.
Replying, Mr Rosser John for Bebb said he could see no objection to one licence when the destination was the same in all cases. There were no public transport services to the club and none of the objectors ran services other than private hirer.
When the Commissioners returned from considering the submission the Chairman Mr R. R. Jackson said that after long deliberation they had reached the conclusion that the application did not conform with the regulations. The Road Traffic Act 1960 says that a Road Service Licence was required in respect of each route and under the (Licences and Certificates) Regulations 1952, Regulation 39 said that an excursions and tours licence should state the precise point from which a group of tours originated.
The present application appeared to have been made futurity in reverse to the regulations. They suggested the application be withdrawn and fresh ones submitted.
When Mr Rosser John asked for an adjournment, Mr Jackson replied that an opportunity had been given to withdraw. As this was not accepted the application would be refused.