PASSENGER LINK

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume VLI, Issue 3420, 16 December 1935, Page 7

PASSENGER LINK

TAURANGA-WAIHI SERVICE. APPEAL DISMISSED BY COORDINATION BOARD. A sitting of the Transport Coordination Board was held in the Courthouse, Tauranga, last week. The members of the Board were Sir Stephen Allen (chairman) and Mr L. Alderton, with Mr A. J. Conway as secretary. Transport Limited, of Paeroa, appealed against the decision of the No. 2 Transport Licensing Authority, which sat at Tauranga on October 14 last, and refused the application of Transport Limited for the following amendment to its present passenger service license, No. 3116: That the car departing from Auckland at 7.15 a.m., and arriving at Waihi at 10.54 a.m., continue to Tauranga, arriving at 12.30 p.m. Returning, depart from Tauranga 3 p.m., arrive at Waihi, 4.40 p.m. This complete extension to operate seven days a week. Also extra time-table on Sundays 1 , to depart from Auckland 7.15 a.m., arrive at Waihi 10.54 a.m. Depart from Waihi 12.20 p.m., arrive Auckland 3.59 p.m. The Transport Co-ordination Board was asked to reverse the decision of the No. 2 Licensing Authority and to grant the amendment as applied for. Mr N. V. Hodgson, of Opotiki, appeared for Transport Ltd. Mr F. H. Apeigh, of Auckland, represented Marffey’s Motor Services, Ltd., of Auckland, and Mr E. Roe, of Rotorua, was for K. Motors Ltd., of Rotorua, and the Rotorua Motor Transport Co., Ltd. Mr F. W. Aickin, railway law officer, of Wellington, represented the Railways Department, and with him was Mr F. G. Craig, commercial agent for the Railways. At the hearing on October 14, letters in support of the extension were read from the Thames Borough Council, Tauranga Chamber of Commerce, Gisborne Chamber of Commerce, Auckland Commercial Travellers and Warehousemen’s Association, Mr E. Edwards (Deputy-Mayor of Paeroa), Paeroa Borough Council, Tauranga Harbour Board, Whakatane Chamber of Commerce, Te Puke Borough Council, Gisborne Borough Council, Opotiki Borough Council, the Hon. C. E. Macmillan, Mr A. M. Samuel, Mr K. S. ! Williams and Messrs F. E. Jackson 4 'and Co., Ltd., of Auckland. Letters against granting the extension were read from the Tauranga Borough Council, White and Sons, Ltd. (Thames), the Tauranga Agricultural and Pastoral Association, the Waihi Railway Protection League and the Waihi Branch of the Farmers’ Union.

Considerable evidence was also heard. Mr Hodgson, in a lengthy review of the evidence given before the No. 2 Transport Licensing Authority, said the appeal was made on two broad grounds. Firstly, the No. 2 Authority in dealing with the application took the view that it was entitled to consider it only in the light of any fresh circumstances which might have arisen in respect of an application previously made by Mr D. King before -the No. 4 Authority in November, 1934. The second main ground was his contention that the No. 2 Authority placed a wrong interpretation upon th? reading of the expression “necessary in the public as referred to in Section 34 of the*“Act... At the outset of the application the 2 Authority took up the attitude that it could view the application only in the light of fresh circumstances and its attitude towards the case was coloured by that view. At the sitting before the No. 4 Authority a number of local bodies had’opposed the application of Mr King, but at the sitting before the No. 2-Authority several of the local bodies had supported the application of Transport Ltd., and one ■ of those was the Waihi Borough Council, evidence for that body having been given by the Mayor of Waihi, Mr W. M. Wallnutt. Mr Hodgson submitted that the No. 2 Authority was wrong in assuming that it was necessary for Transport Ltd. to show a change in conditions and in support -quoted Section 19. He maintained that the Authority was free to deal with the application—which had been before another ■authority—in any manner which it pleased. The chairman pointed out that under Section 34 it was necessary to • show that the amendment of the license was necessary in the public interest. , Mr Hodgson contended that the No. 2 Authority had misconstrued the in•„terpretation of the term, necessary in

the public interest. It was admitted at the hearing that there would be a saving in time of one hour six minutes between Gisborne and Auckland, also a saving of twelve miles between Whakatane and Auckland. Mr Haigh stated that time could be saved by cutting down the period of his'Company’s stop at Hamilton. Mr Hodgson replied that even if the time were cut down at Hamilton there would still be a saving of fortysix minutes in the proposed service of Transport Ltd. The point was then raised as to the local bodies which had supported the application and these were quoted by Mr Hodgson. Mr Aickin pointed out that the Tauranga County Council was against the application.

Mr Hodgson said there would be no difficulty in regard to the intervening link between Tauranga and Waihi fitting in with the present service of Transport Ltd., to Auckland. If necessary the applicant could reduce the time for the stop at Hamilton. The proposed service would enable people from the Gisborne district to reach the Hauraki Plains in one day and he maintained that was a strong point in respect to the necessity of the public interest. Evidence had been given before the No. 2 Authority that there were frequent inquiries for “free” passages by car from Tauranga to Auckland. There , was no service which enabled 'Gisborne people to travel beyond Tauranga in one day. The refusal of the application would be to encourage the practice of “free” rides from Tauranga to Auckland. He submitted that the term, necessary in the public interest, must be viewed in a broad‘sense, particularly in regard to methods of transport, which were not stable. There was no service on Sunday out of Tauranga or Te Puke and that was a necessity. Tauranga was a tourist resort and a Sunday service was essential. He submitted that where there was a public demand there was necessity in the public interest. The requirements of the Gisborne, Tauranga, Waihi and Paeroa districts amounted to a necessity. ’

The Court adjourned for a few minutes and on resuming Sir Stephen Allen announced that the appeal would be dismissed and the Board would give its reasons in writing at a leter date. Mr Roe referred to the question of costs. The application or similar ones had been dealt with on four occasions and the objectors had been put to considerable expense in appearing and calling evidence. Mr Haigh applied for costs. Mr Aickin said the Railway Department would not ask for costs. Mr Hodgson, in opposing the applications for costs, said the application was the first by Transport Ltd. and so was the appeal. It was not associated with Mr King’s application otherwise than by a connection with his service. The chairman intimated the question of costs would be considered.