Should Restrictions b e Applied

26th September 1952, Page 73

26th September 1952

Page 73

Page 73, 26th September 1952 — Should Restrictions b e Applied

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

in Primary or Backing Area ?

SHOLILD wasteful competition be discussed in the traffic area from which a primary licence is issued or in the" backing" area? This question has been raised in an unsuccessful appeal by Southdown Motor Services, Ltd.

Two decisions of the South Eastern Licensing Authority were contested, one granting Messrs. Elms, Phillips and Brown additional vehicles on excursions and tours from Tottenham to Brighton and Worthing, and the other granting an extended period of operation and an additional vehicle to Horseshoe Coaches, Ltd., in respect of tours from Tottenham to I3righton, Worthing. Littlehampton and Bognor. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

For Southdown it was stated that the South Eastern Authority declared that he had no jurisdiction to put restrictions on a backing which were not on a primary licence. Southdown had called for restrictions to ensure that the excursions and tours should not compete with its express services to the points concerned.

'Backing" Authority's Duty

Cases were quoted to indicate that it was the duty of the backing" Authority to ensure that there Was nci wasteful competition. For the respondent, it was held that Southdown should have raised objections when the applications for the primary licences were heard.

Mr. W. Tudor Davies, of the Ministry of Transport. observed that the appellant company stated that it had no alternative, after the remarks of the South Eastern Licensing Authority, but

to argue the case in his area. The respondents, on the other hand, held that the-matter was the concern of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, an opinion with which the inspector declared he was largely in agreement.

In an appeal by-the Railway Executive against a decision of the Western Licensing Authority, granting Mr. M. E. Snell, Castle Combe, Chippenham, Wilts, licences for express services from Colernc Royal Air Force Station to London and Birmingham, the Minister has followed the policy revealed in the Burrett and Wells case (" The Commercial Motor," September 19).

The appeal has been dismissed with costs. The Minister held that the benefit of the two services fo the Servicemen was sufficient to justify licensing them as services desirable in the public interest. The inspector, Mr. R. L. H. Hiscott, recommended that the appeal should stand in respect of the London service and fail as regards the Birmingham service.

In the appeal of the Railway Executive against the decision of the Western Licensing Authority, granting Messrs. G. J. Miller and Sons, Cirencester, licences for express services from South Cemey R.A.F. station to Birmingham, Cardiff, Bristol and London, the inspector, Mr. E. C. P. Laseelles, declared that the appeal should fail in respect of all the services except that to Bristol. The Minister has followed this recommendation, and the Birmingham, London and Cardiff licences are to be revoked.

An appeal lodged by Hants and Sussex Motor Services, Ltd., against a decision of the South Eastern Licensing Authority has failed. The Authority refused to grant the appellant a licence for a stage service from a new housing estate eight miles from Portsmouth city centre to Havant.

The route proposed followed one operated by Southdown Motor Services, Ltd., with extensions at each end. -Mr. Hiscott held that there was no need for a second operator on the route, when there already was a willing and efficient one covering it.

Hire Work : Operator Discharged

AN absolute discharge on payment of £5 5s. costs was given by the Kingston (Surrey) magistrates on Monday, to Harry Christopher Clarence Luff, of Kingston Road, Leatherhead, a partner with his father in a coach business. when he pleaded guilty to a summons for permitting the use of an express carriage without a road service licence.

Mr. L. E. Barker (prosecuting) sak that the case was almost identical with that of a recent High Court decision concerning the running of a hotel bus. That decision was that the regular Weekly rtIDDing of a bus was not a special occasion.

Every Monday evening, coaChes were hired from Mr. Luff to take people from Leatherhead or Chessington to 'Wimbledon Speedway. The trips were organized by other people. The frequency with which the coaches ran took them out of the category of a "special occasion.' It was not suggested that Mr. Luff was deliberately breaking the law, Mr. W. J. Dawe (defending) said that Mr. Luff was doing only what coach owners had done for many years. Twenty-two coaches were run regularly to the Wimbledon Speedway, but only four of the owners had been summoned

30,000 EXTRA DELIVERIES IN A FORTNIGHT

AHIGHLY organized plan was carried out by S.P.D., Ltd., for the initial distribution of a new Lever Bros. washing powder in the Home Counties and south-east. It called for the transport of 3,500 tons of this commodity, known as Surf, and 30,000 deliveries within a fortnight.

The work was superimposed upon normal routine, which involves the delivery of 23,800 orders in the same territory. Separate stores were allotted to stocks of Surf to secure additional delivery bays to permit the loading of the product at the same time as other items. Nearly 90 vans were exclusively allotted to its distribution. Delivery dockets had previously been made up into economic van loads to obtain high ton-mileage factors.

Each vehicle bore effective advertising and drivers were specially briefed so as to appreciate the significance of the new loads. In the first week, 18,000 orders amounting to 1,820 tons of goods were dispatched to retailers. It was expected that consignments to wholesalers, cooperative societies and multiple stores would take less time than planned.

ADDRESSING PASSENGERS THE reference to the experimental passenger-address equipment on an East Kent Road Car double-decker in The Commercial Motor" on September 12, has resulted in a number of inquiries to Mr. R. G. James, general manager. He says that the vehicle is a normal type manned by both driver and conductor. The instructions to the driver are that the microphone must be used only when the vehicle is stationary. c7