Victoria Coaches versus State Battle Re-opens A SUBMISSION that Westcliff-on-Sea
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Motor Services, Ltd., decided ''to apply for an all-the-year-round service between Southend and London only when the Minister of Transport allowed the appeal of Victoria Coaches (Leigh-on-Sea), Ltd., on the ground that the existing road and rail facilities were inadequate, was made at Cambridge, last week. Their application for the service to be authorized was being heard by the Eastern Licensing Authority.
The Minister's decision on the Victoria Coaches' appeal, which was strongly opposed by Westcliff Motor Services, a State-owned coach operator, and British Railways, was given at the end of last year (The Commercial Motor, January 8).
[The application was for an extension of Westcliff's existing summer service from Southend to Victoria Coach Station, London. throughout . the winter, with an additional picking-up and setting-down point at Basildon. Two additional journeys each way in the summer were also requested.] Cross-examined by Mr. M. A. B. King-Hamilton, for Victoria Coaches. Mr. L. E. Richards, assistant general manager of Westcliff, said that although the final decision to apply for the service was taken after the Minister ruled that the existing facilities were inadequate, they had been planning it for some 18 months. The decision had also been affected by the development of the new town of Basildon, which was an important stop on the route.
Mr. Richards said they applied to the Metropolitan Licensing Authority this time last year for permission to operate both stage and express services between Basildon and London, but they were refused on the ground that the application was "Premature."
But, said Mr. Richards. they would have applied for the Southend service irrespective of the Minister's decision.
Different Emphasis
He denied that throughout Victoria Coaches' application he had submitted that there was no need for a winter service. What he had said was that there was no need for a service to Tower Hill [Victoria Coaches' terminal point in London].
Mr. Richards claimed that their service was designed for an entirely different type of traffic from that of Victoria Coaches. It was intended mainly for people who wished to shop in the West End, and persons visiting relatives and friends, and for those purposes, Victoria Coach Station was more convenient than Tower Hill.
He agreed that the proposed service would abstract from their existing City coach service [run to the Wood Green electric railway to London], but said it was more comprehensive. Mr. KingHamilton said that during the Victoria Coaches' appeal hearing late last year, Westcliff Motor Services had prayed-inaid the City service in contending that the facilities were adequate.
Submitting that Victoria Coaches' service would he more convenient because it would take less time, Mr. King-Hamilton said that the proposed service would take 2 hr. 25 min. against 1 hr. 50 min. on that of his clients. It would take 20 min. or so to get by bus from Victoria to the West End, arid there were buses to that part of London from Tower Hill.
Asked whether the proposed service would abstract from that of Victoria Coaches, Mr. Richards said it would not, because he could not see that the type of traffic they were catering for would travel to Tower Hill. He agreed that the services would abstract from the railways.
A letter supporting the application in respect of the Basildon-London section of the route was ruled as inadmissible by the Authority, Mr. W. P. S. Ormond, because it concerned the Metropolitan Area, in which a hacking will have to be sought.
Stanway Coaches (Southend), Ltd., also appeared as objectors.
The hearing was adjourned until yesterday (Thursday).