11 Object to New Excursions

21st September 1956, Page 92

21st September 1956

Page 92

Page 92, 21st September 1956 — 11 Object to New Excursions

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

AN application by E. H. Simms, Ltd., Sheffield, for new excursions and tours starting from the centre of the city aroused violent objections from 11 established operators, when it was heard by the Yorkshire Licensing Authority, at Leeds, last Friday. The objectors were Sheffield United Tours, Ltd., C. G. Littlewood, Ltd., Sansom Bros. (Sheffield), Ltd., Hirst and Ssveeting, Ltd., E. Jeffcock, G. E. Whiteley, H. Jackson, Law Bros., G. Hibberd, J. 0. Andrew, and J. W. Fanton. They contended that it was an attempt by an applicant without a licence to get right into the heart of Sheffield and cause abstraction. Mr. W. Marshall, for Simms, said the application was for excursions to Ely and Cambridge, Woburn Abbey and Newby Hall, during the Sheffield holiday fortnight only, with a maximum of two vehicles on any tour on any day. Simms had a large private-hire business, and were licensed for an express service from Sheffield to Ely during July and August. It was found that privatehire work was negligible during the holiday period, and they had received a large demand for day trips to the places to which no other operator in Sheffield was licensed to operate. For S.U.T., Mr. W. R. Ktrgrave said

c26

Simms wanted to enter the excursion market within a• few hundreds yards of his client's originating point. If the Licensing Authority thought interest should be stimulated to these destinations, the established operators should do it. Mr. J. Mellor submitted, for the other objectors, that it was peculiar that only the applicant had a demand for these destinations, yet he said he did not select them but gauged the demand. Was not the real reason that private hire was quiet during the licensed operators' peak period? Mr. Marshall pointed out that the objectors were, on the one hand, hoping there was no demand, and, on the other, asking to be allowed to give the destinations a trial. They could not have d foot in both camps. The application was not for highly popular destinations, and six reputable -witnesses had given evidence of need. Only five of the 11 objectors had thought fit to give evidence. It had been suggested before that the Sheffield operators objected to newcomers en bloc, The truth was they were so busy. during the holiday weeks they had no time or inclination to extend to these destinations.

117eisinn was reserved.