Orwellian
-
Posts
413 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Everything posted by Orwellian
-
No existing marina was compelled to have a NAA. Don't forget that most marinas prior to the introduction of the NAA in 2005 had ' connection agreements'. The NAA was introduced following consultation with the trade body and was aimed at consistency and to be attractive to investors. The Yardley Gobion case already referred to was prior to NAA.
-
Shardlow Marina is connected directly to the River Trent so CRT have no legal basis to require an NAA or any other form of agreement. If they have concerns re harm to their statutory interests all they can do us object to any planning application as a statutory consulted
-
Yes the NAA specifies precisely what has been agreed to including the gross mooring capacity and the physical characteristics of the mooring basin.
-
I don't understand how you have come to this conclusion. Providing the prospective marina is on a waterway where CRT can require a NAA it would not allow it to connect without one. In deciding whether or not to do so it assesses whether it would 'harm' the waterway by adversely affecting water resources or impacting the safety of the waterway and navigation upon it. If it causes such harm it would refuse consent.
-
I what way is it wrong? If there is no legal basis to require an agreement than that's the end of it. Unless you can think of a way to put it 'right'?
-
In the main (there are always exceptions) these marinas are on river navigations, existing arms not owned by CRT or connected so long ago that they enjoy 'prescriptive rights'. Not all agreements are standard NAAs as prior to their introduction 'licences to connect' were granted. There is no formal agreement not to have an agreement of some kind.
-
No - I'm Spartacus!
-
If this issue is going to continue can we use the correct term. It's Freeman on the Land.
-
I thought he was doing just that.
-
Sorry I've had enough. There's something on the tele that has just become compulsive viewing.
-
From the Law Society website.
-
So you both now accept that the state or the 'public' do not own them?
-
No it doesn't. Read the following carefully. I've highlighted a section to assist
-
The assertion I originally questioned was that the CRT canals were 'owned by the people'. They are not as they were transferred 'out of public ownership' as it states in the document I provided a copy of.
-
The following extract from The Trust Settlement between Government & CRT should help confirm the ownership question. Note the words in 1.1.
-
That is just marketing speak. I say again check the Land Registry.
-
Not found.
-
Sorry but that doesn't mean CRT's waterways are owned by the public. Just check the Land Registry.
-
There is no single purpose but a wide range of perfectly legitimate ones. Their original purpose was to carry goods but that declined and was largely replaced by leisure uses of various kinds.
-
Can you prove that statement?
-
The fine is very small but it does give the offender a criminal record. I was once told that CRT took a policy decision not to criminalise their customers so relied on Sec 8 powers instead where the boat is eventually seized.
-
I won't don't worry. I think you deliberately gave everyone the impression the book was in your possession so you could play your rather juvenile game.
-
So why don't you go and stand in for him? I'll buy you the matches.
-
More often referred to as being an irritating tw*t.
-
The man clearly needs support but that should be by health and/or social services which his 'supporters' should be finding for him rather than using him in their fight against CRT. Deeply cynical and frankly repugnant.
- 181 replies
-
- 13
-
