OBSERVATION TOURS

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26093, 21 April 1950, Page 9

OBSERVATION TOURS

TRAMWAY APPLICATION REFUSED

An application by the Christchurch Tramway Board (Dr. A. L. Haslam) for permission to conduct evening observation tours over the Summit road route was refused by the No. 3 Transport Licensing Authority (Mr C. L. Bishop) at a sitting yesterday. The application was opposed by Midland Motorways Services, Ltd. (Mr R. A. Young). The proposed route was from Cathedral square to the Summit road to Evans Pass, through Sumner, Redcliffs, Avonside, and back to the Square. The distance would be 26 miles. For the board Dr. Haslam said that Midland Motorways had not been operating the evening tours for a considerable time, and had not established a business covering this particular form of enterprise. There was, in fact, no evidence that Midland Motorways had at any time operated evening tours. The board considered that it was justified in asking for a licence to operate on equal terms with the company. The Transport Appeal Authority (Judge Archer) had said that the company was entitled to reasonable protection in the business it had built up, but it did not follow that it was entitled to a monopoly of all observatioi. tour business in Christchurch. On these grounds the board submitted that the company had been operating for some time m daylight on the Summit road, and that it was not entitled to an inclusive monopoly to evening business in which it had not previously been interested. The manager of Midland Motorways (Mr J. B. Connor) said that the company had tried the service before the war. He did not consider there was sufficient demand for the service at the present time. It was intended to reintroduce the service immediately after the winter. It was expected that there would be sufficient business for the service during the centennial celebrations.

In refusing the application, the Authority said that although he did not think the company .should have a monopoly with observation tours, he considered that it had put in all the spade-work and advertising in the Summit road observation tours, and should be protected for this particular route. He was influenced’ in this by the decision of the Transport Appeal Authority (Judge Archer), who had said that the company should receive reasonable protection. The Authority also considered that the board had not made a sufficiently strong case to warrant the granting of a second licence over the same route.