NEWCASTLE'S APPLICATIONS TO THE M. OF T.
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Proceedings at an Official Inquiry into the Applications of the Municipal Authority for Extended Bus-operating Powers.
A SERIES of applications by the .1:INewcastle Corporation with respect to proposed extensions of its motorbus powers, formed the subject of another important Ministry of Transport inquiry, which was opened at Newcastle on Tuesday of last week by Mr. C. H. Tollerton. The applications have reference to extensions to include Whitley Bay, Darras Hall and Fawdon. The Corporation was represented by Mr. C. N. Fenwick, and S!r. R. Harker appeared for the London and NorthEastern Railway Co., whilst others present included Mr. F. J. Lambert for the Fawdon Omnibus Co., Mr. P. L. Frankham on behalf of residents of Fawdon, Mr. P. Kirby for the Gorsforth Urban District Council and Mr. Harbottle for Castle Ward Rural District Cquncil.
Opening the case for the corporation, Mr. Fenwick said the applications came under the Newcastle Corporation Act of
1920. In both applications, under a special section to run buses over certain specified routes, it asked whether or not the consent of local rural authorities had been reasonably withheld. In fact, it was asking for powers to run on these routes and for the overruling of the refusal of the different authorities. The first application was the proposed extension to Whitley Bay. The corporation, with other authorities, had constructed a new coast road, which was so important to Newcastle that, although only a small portion was within the city, the corporation had contributed 44 per cent, of the amount left to be met after a 50 per cent, grant had been allowed by the Ministry. When the road was finished the corporation asked for running powers over it. The Tynemonth Electric Traction Co., Ltd., had a protective clause which prohibited direct competition with its tramways, and this had resulted in the corporation's application being refused at a previous inquiry. The matter, however, had now been adjusted and there is in operation on the new road between Newcastle and North Shields and Tynemouth a service jointly worked by the corporation and private undertakings. In addition there are services to Whitley Bay and Monkseaton maintained by the United Automobile Services, Ltd.
The corporation now asked that it might run services to a point southwest of Whitley Bay from which it proposed to operate two routes, both of which wonld serve a rapidly developing residential district. Its only opponents were the London and NorthEastern Railway Co., which objected, as road authorities, in connection with bridges and level crossings along the routes, and the United Automobile Services, Ltd.
Turning to the second application, Mr. Fenwick said the corporation wished to extend its existing Ponteland service to the growing garden city of Darras Hall. The railway company had a branch line, but the last train left Newcastle at 9.38 p.m., and the last train from Darras Hall left at 10.36 p.m. The residents, he said, depended, therefore, largely upon the existing corporation bus service to Ponteland.
So far as the third application was concerned, Mr. Fenwick said the position was somewhat peculiar. For a good time the corporation had been run
ning to CoxIodge. A few hundred yards from that terminus was the small village of Fawdon. There had been considerable building development in the area and recently a private bus service had been run from Fawdon Village to Newcastle by the Fawdon Omnibus Co. Later in the inquiry the inspector, it was stated, would hear, in connection with that service, an appeal against the refusal of the Newcastle Watch Committee to grant that company licences. The city undertaking's application was for sanction to extendthe CoxIodge service by 100 yards and make a terminal point in Fawdon.
Giving evident.Mr. T. P. Easton, general manager of the Newcastle Corporation transport undertaking, said that the bus undertaking showed a surplus of £1,630 in the past year. Dealing with an invitation from the parish council to start a service to the village, he said the service was not then started, because it was not considered an appropriate moment to institute such a route.
Mr. Kirby said that his council was all against the elimination of private enterprise and it favoured the granting of licences to the Fawdon Omnibus Co.
Stating the case for Fawdon residents,_ Mr. Prankham pointed out that previous to the Fawdon company starting operations they hal to walk half a mile to pick up the nearest bus.
Evidence in connection with the Whitley Bay application was given by Mr. Oscar Preston, chairman of the local urban district council, who said his council was in favour of the service. He submitted figures showing the reduction in the number of people now travelling by rail between Newcatale and the coast because of the high fares.
The inquiry was resumed on the following morning. It was stated that the United Automobils Services, Ltd., had withdrawn its opposition to the Whitley Bay development. In the course of further evidence, Mr. Easton said that there was ample scope for the exMnsion of the municipal services to Whitley Bay. No service was complete if it only served one end of a place. In this case only the south end of the town was served from the Newcastle district. Turning to the railway company's objections, Mr. Easton said one of these was that there was no local traffic along the first coast road route, and that it was an attempt to obtain through traffic, whk's could be dealt with by the electrified railway.
Discussing the Darras Hall route, Mr. Easton said their Ponteland service was popular and well patronized, and they had had a request from the residents to extend the service to Darras. He regarded the railway facilities as quite inadequate. The corporation thought it should have a share of the coastwise traf,:c in view of the fact that they had borne such a large share of the cost of the new road.
Addressing the Commissioner, Mr. Harker said that one of his arguments was based on the position in which railway companies stood at present in their relations with the travelling public nod traders of the country. Dealing with the granting of powers to local authorities, he submitted that if the Newcastle Corporation was applying that day afresh for bus powers it would not get so much latitude as it obtained in its Let of 1920, because now the policy of the Government was to restrict the limits of corporation transport undertakings. Whilst approving of a local authority supplying transport facilities for th3 people of its own area, Parliament increasingly disapproved of local authorities, such as Newcastle, catering for traffic of the nature of that between that city and Whitley Bay.
Turning to the Darras Hall application, he submitted that this was a case ef real hardship on the railways.
On the completion of the opposition to the corporation's applications, the commissioner proceeded to hear the appeal by the Fawdon Omnibus Co. against the refusal of the corporation to grant t licences. Mr. Tollerton observed that it was established that it WAS desirable that there should be a service between Fawdon and the City. The question for the Ministry to determine seemed to be whether both the corporation and' the private company shculd maintain it, or whether one of the parties should have power to run.
For the private company Mr. Frank J. Lambert submitted that the preference should be extended to that undertaking. The corporation had had its opportunity and had not taken it.
Mr. J. J. Berry, a member of the company, said the Fawdon Omnibus•Ccs had two 32-seaters and one 26
seater, and its takings ranged from £85 to £90 per week. He added that at peak periods the corporation was not giving adequate service on the CoxIodge route. Evidence with respect to a census taken of the Fawdon vehicles was given by Inspector Woodcock, of the city police. In every case the buses carried six or seven passengers between Fawdon and Co/dodge, and considerably more at later portions of the journey.
Mr. Fenwick submitted that the appellants had introduced an element of wasteful competition, and that the watch committee was perfectly justified in "refusing the applications.