"Protect S.U.T.'s Interests" : Estate Traffic Sought
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BECAUSE of the decreasing population in the centre of Sheffield, it was necessary to protect the interests of Sheffield United Tours, Ltd., by seeking to serve new housing estates growing up around the city's boundaries.
This was submitted to the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners, at Leeds. on I" onday, by Mr. Ben Goodfellow, general manager of the company, when they applied for a new excursions and tours licence from Gleadless, to serve the Base Green, flemsworth and Greenhill estates.
Sansam Bros. (Sheffield), Ltd., Messrs. Law Bros., Messrs. E. Jeffcock, Messrs. H. Jackson, Messrs. G. E. _Whiteley, Sharpe Bros. (Beighton), Ltd.. Grant and McAlin, Ltd., and British Railways objected.
An application by Messrs. Jeffeock for a new excursions and tours licence from Castlegate. Sheffield, to nine angling destinations, with picking-up points in the same area, was heard at the same time. S.U.T., Sheffield Corporation, Sheffield Joint Omnibus Co., and B.R. objected.
Earlier Application Failed Mr. W. R. Hargrave, for S.U.T. said that in 1952 the company became concerned about the population position and applied for a variety of starting points on the outskirts of Sheffield to cater for the overspill. The Commissioners refused the application on the ground that transport was ample, but added that they would discuss the matter with the Corporation and the West Riding County Council.
This was followed by a meeting of all the local operators, when it was agreed that there should be no applications for new points within the Sheffield boundaries without prior consultation, but the arrangement did not include angling excursions. Since then three competitors of S.U.T. had been granted licences from Corporation estates just outside the boundary.
Questioned by Mr. J. Mellor, for the road objectors, Mr. Goodfellow denied that S.U.T. had agreed not to apply for angling excursions from Greenhill. His company, he added, had by far the greatest number of fishing licences in the city and were faced with many difficulties. He did not agree that this type of operation was more suited to small operators than large companies.
When it was suggested that a third of the objectors' excursion traffic came from the new area, ,Mr. Goodfellow pointed out that every time their competitors were granted a licence on the outskirts, S.U.T.'s main licences in the city centre were robbed of traffic.
The hearing was adjourned.