> I also read this earlier. Seems to me that the importance of this case
> cannot be overstated. I'm sure many people here recall smaller scale
> disputes in the likes of Nantwich and Ansty about moorings near to
> property. The concept that boats can be prevented from mooring in a
> "pretty" location by property developers is a scary one.
>
> Steve
> NB Bream
>
I think we (and BW) need to separate out different types of moorings and
defend them equally. As I understand it, the K&A case is about
established permanent / residential moorings, as was the Tideway case?
The Ansty case was about existing cruising moorings - perhaps more
difficult to defend as BW has established the principle of a fairly
draconian regulation of the right to moor while cruising. BW's powers to
permit new permanent moorings would be a third issue.
If BW is going to expect boaters to pay more it will have to give more
in return.
Sean
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
