AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Opposed Assisted-travel Renewals Granted to Berresfords

29th May 1964, Page 44
29th May 1964
Page 44
Page 44, 29th May 1964 — Opposed Assisted-travel Renewals Granted to Berresfords
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

AFTER a two-day bearing in February and May, the West Midland Traffic Commissioners have granted in a reserved decision two renewal applications by Berresfords Motors Ltd., which were objected to by the Potteries Motor Traction Co. Ltd. Both services were for the carriage of employees of William Broster and Co. Ltd. of Leek—one starting from Weston Coyney and the other from Milton—and were operated on an assisted travel basis.

Dealing with the first of the renewals, which was without modification, the Commissioners said they had no hesitation in finding that the service should be renewed. There had been no material change in circumstances since a previous grant which had been approved by the Inspector and Minister on appeal.

The second application. the Commissioners said. presented a different and difficult problem. The service was carrying about 30 daily return passengers and was valuable to Broster as a means of attracting and maintaining their labour force. Broster, they added, contributed at least 45 per cent towards the cost of the service and wished to increase the company's labour force gradually by about another 150 employees. Regular stage carriage facilities offered by P.M.T. were adequate but not suitable as to cost.

On the evidence available the Commissioners were doubtful if Brasier would retain all existing labour or would be able to recruit new labour from the route if the present facilities were withdrawn and replaced by a subsidy towards the cost of workers using the P.M.T. service. A similar experiment in the past had failed.

The evidence. the Commissioners concluded; was only inferential that P.M.T. were losing traffic consequent on the grant or the licence and there was nothing to 'establish that the competition was wasteful.