"Neil Arlidge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Talk of planners the WWW's planning dept at RB Windsor and Maidenhead has >had the most bizarre descions by the Secretary Of State recently, flying >totally against all government planning policies.
No change there, then. A few years ago, the RB refused approval of a residential mooring (after one of its wandering staff had just happened to come across it) that had been in use for about 50 years (but with unprovable continuity), because it didn't allow dwellings in the flood plain. Good thing Noah didn't come from there, eh? Fortunately, the government changed the national law at the crucial time, and the mooring became legal automatically through ten year's use. Also, the RB had (has?) rules saying: (a) Only one boat may be moored to a riverfront property. So I asked "irrespective of size?" and was told "yes". So I said, "If you are going to let me moor a 38 m barge there, what is the logic in not letting me moor two 10 m cruisers instead?". There was no coherent answer. So I asked "How do you treat tenders? Are they OK if they are kept on top of the main boat, or does that count as two boats being moored? Are they OK if they are floating? What if they are folded up and kept in a locker on board". There was no coherent answer. (b) The moored boat must be owned by the owner of the property it is moored to. So I asked "All of it? What if the owner owns only a (e.g.) 1% share?" There was no coherent answer. So I asked "How can you tell (for enforcement purposes) whether a moored boat has the same owner as the property it is moored to?" There was no coherent answer. So I asked "What if the boat owner is a tenant of the property it is moored to?" There was ..... Overall, I concluded that the RB had not got a clue on the topic. But it was a fun phone call. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
