>> 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 BW and some marinas, have been allowing boats that people live on to moor without having residential planning permission for some years. Occasionally it all ends in tears. Friends were turned off their private moorings when a nearby houseowner complained, 80 liveaboard boats left Barton Turn Marina. It always suprises me that, usually law abiding, people are willing to sell their houses to live illegally. Sue
