Mike Todd

But only in some way - for the most part it does not look at the issue in enough depth to form a real judgement. For example, we do not know whether CaRT actually have the powers to introduce a width restriction as demanded. Whenever CaRT allegedly exceed their powers, plenty of boaters are all too ready to jump into the attack. That said, a booking scheme, as with the tunnels, could go a long way to alleviate the problem, especially if it imposed a good ahead-of-time notice period and confined the transits to very specific and under-used times.

And price!

My understanding at the time was that there had been substantial bank damage from otters leading to reduced capacity and increased risk of drought closure. If correct that is a good readon to mitigate.

This experience is far from confined to BSS but can be found in other inspection regime as well. Sometimes, however, it pays to stand up to them.

Could be legally sticky ground if up against a determined opponent . . . He does not appear to have gone through due process to seize goods in respect of a debt.

2.5 * 2 = 5 > 4

I would assume that a solicitor would include in the standard enquiries from the vendor what pp already exists and be careful to ensure that residential use is clearly proven.

It will now need to get more so since his ex wife looks set to take half his wealth!

There are two 'problem' groups: those who are unaware of the issues with CO and the need for detectors and those who, knowing of the dangers, choose not to protect themselves , including those who continue to use eg generators in a confined space such as a cratch cover. CO-Gas Safety seem to suggest that there is still a concerning level of unawareness (ie the first group). However, I read the comment by Alan referred to the second group ie those who choose to ignore the recommendation, soon to be requirement. I am happy for them to be be described as "no normal person would even consider not . . ." To put it more bluntly, it is plain daft! However, let's use all available channels to raise the level of awareness and let the 'nanny state' look after the few that persist thereafter. After what could, frighteningly, have made us another statistic a couple of years ago, it surprised me just how far CO can drift within the context of a canal boat, even if not created inside the cabin.

The top photo on the front page looks out of date as the one below shows what can be seen currently on Google maps Sat View that the field has for some time been subdivided and that there are several boats typically moored along there now.

I don't think you can derive the certainty of (il)legality from the text you cited. In particular it makes it clear that we are in a grey area that would have to be determined on the facts of the case. In any event, it is up to CaRT to make any necessary application and I would have thought that they could argue that the use is ancillary. No planning authority (esp one closely associate with a housing authority) is going to create unnecessary homeless cases (which is what would happen) which they then have to house as a matter of emergency. Winter mooring permits are clearly in a different category from permanent moorings - even if that does not directly say that they do not require pp.

Useful to draw out the distinction as some folk do conflate the two situations without realising that they are significantly different (and is a minefield for marinas . . .)

When were there the gate to the car park, opposite end from office, had a key pad which could be operated from the car whilst on exit it opened automatically. One of the shortest distances to port between car and boat.

We had a short term mooring there this summer and we found the staff and boaters very pleasant. It is, compared with the mega-marinas, quite small and this perhaps helps. It is a good location - the nearest station is a bit of a hike (20 minutes IIRC) but level and doable. I understand about the issue of getting in to some of the pontoons as we were accommodated close to the far end! However, we were fortunate to arrive on a windless day (but it is quite sheltered anyway) and opted to reverse in, for a quicker getaway at the end. There were several boaters on the lookout for entertainment but, sadly for them, I failed to provide it! Was one of my better reversings onto moorings (not all are like that!) Some did grudgingly admit being impressed. If it was where we wanted to break, I'd happily go back there again although I hope that ABC to not over institionalise it, but there were obvious areas in which some improvement could be made, with investment. It happened that the announcement came whilst we were there, with an interesting conversation with the office staff person!

And remember that navigating on red boards probably means that you will be uninsured (going against advice) and therefore against the bylaws so you could be challenged at any point! Apart from not being for the faint hearted - some locks require you to pass quiet close to the weirs. What is OK for the experienced is not necessarily safe for everyone. Can't recall whether you are single handed but having at least one crew does help with the navigation - as mentioned there are quite a few islands and the main passage is not always obvious until the last minute. Also, below Brentford it is important to dopwnload the guide to the bridges - there are plenty of them and each has its own rules about which arch to use. All that said, the doom-mongers are not being helpful!