(10 hours ago)Superman wrote ... I think the second exception is deliberately included to provide flexibility if operators challenge the proposals (and I wholly expect them to do so). It appears aimed at situations where, for example, Arriva could argue that franchising services into or around Darlington would have a detrimental impact on its wider commercial network in Darlington (i.e. loss of services via franchise would push full depot overheads onto a small town network and likely make it unsustainable). The wording suggests they are anticipating that argument and have left themselves room to exclude services if necessary.

I understand your point, but IMO it would be controversial if Arriva's concern became decisive, as it would seem to leave the south west of the region with a second class service. 

IF the current Arriva services into Darlington are franchised, it would only have the effect you anticipate if Arriva did not win them. I would have thought Arriva is actually being put a slight advantage, as no other large operators currently have suitable depots. (And, if Arriva won the Belmont depot franchise, is there anything to prevent a franchised service 7 continuing to be shared operationally between Belmont and Darlington?)

Even if Arriva lost them all - which would seem careless and surely unlikely - I do see that Arriva would need to down-size at Darlington, but its not as if economies would be impossible. (Say becoming a quite large outstation to a super-depot located on Teesside?) Arriva already has recent and current experience of depot re-shaping ...