Minister Explains Appeal Delay
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A PPEALS lodged by the Railway
Executive, W. C. Standcrwick, Ltd., and Scout Motor Services, Ltd., against a decision of the West Midland Licensing Authority granting Gliderways Coaches, Ltd., a licence to continue to operate a Smethwick-Blackpool summer express service, with an extended period, has been dismissed with costs.
Giving decision on the appeals, which were heard on September 26, the Minister declares:— " A decision on these appeals could have been given much earlier if the inspector had not had to wait for a transcript of the appeal inquiry before submitting his report. The Minister appreciates that the taking of a shorthand note enables the proceedings at the inquiry to be speeded up and saves the time of those engaged, hut he feels bound to point out that this practice leads to delay in determining the appeal if, instead of relying on notes taken in the course of the inquiry, the inspector has to wait for some time, often several weeks, for a transcript before he can prepare and submit his report."
Mr. W. Blackhurst, for the two road operators, submitted that there was bound to be abstraction, because passengers who had tentatively booked for the respondent's service would other wise have booked with the appellants if the period of crperation had not been extended. The Licensing Authority permitted the respondent to start the service on Whit Saturday, instead of on the Saturday before the penultimate Saturday in June.
For Gliderways it was contended that licences had been held for the service for many years and, therefore, need was established. The concern had operated to Blackpool before the Road Traffic Act. All the licences held for services to the coast ran from Whit Saturday, and all should be on the same footing. Whereas 87 journeys had formerly been authorized, under the decision under appeal this would be increased to 91.
Recommending the dismissal of the appeals, Mr. E. C. P. Lascelles said that the appellants contended that there was no need for extensions, because the existing facilities were adequate. If the application had been for a new service, evidence of existing facilities might make it doubtful if need could be established. In this case need had to be admitted.
He could not say that the Licensing Authority had been wrong to grant an extension of the period of operation to meet the need indicated by the evidence.