Drop_Shunt

You are fully aware of the great work that CaRT do, and presumably appreciate the costs involved, and yet you seem happy to be associated with a business which has apparently quite cynically deprived them of GBP 180,000 - breaking a legally binding contract freely entered into and then walking away from their responsibilities. Behaviour which deserves the opprobrium of their peers and customers. You may not consider that CaRT have contributed anything to your business in return for the monies you agreed to pay them, but I suspect you would suffer if Pines Lock and Loughborough Lock were inoperable through lack of maintenance. I, for one, hope most sincerely that CaRT keep the viprous nest of business under a microscope for a very long time, until they have demonstrated that they can be trusted, and that they waste no time in taking action in the event of future breaches of contract. I'm sure a significant number of people will be keeping an eye on the marina for them . . .

So, is that a "no" on the figures then ?

csh, welcome back. Any chance of those figures you were going to look out for me please (reference below) ? Ta duck. csh, on 27 Feb 2014 - 6:51 PM, said:

Which leads to something I have been pondering recently . . . just how big a boat can be taken out via road, given the physical restrictions imposed by Flesh Hovel Lane ?

Thank you very much csh, I look forward to receiving the information detailed above.

Hi csh, It sounds like you have the relevant facts and figures to hand, so, to save me doing the legwork, over what time period were the agreed NAA payments made in full please ? I believe that the requirement to make payment in full was phased in over a number of years from the opening of the marina, and I don't have the information to hand to do the maths myself, so it would be very interesting to see when the dispute first arose - I had until your post been under the impression that the agreed payments had never been made ! Ta duck.

I keep seeing allusions to the possibility that the site is seen - in the long to medium term - as a prospect for housing development. However the vast majority of the marina sits on land that has been designated as Zone 3B (functional floodplain) under the local authority's Serious Flood Risk Assessment. The types of development permitted inside Zone 3B are strictly limited to: 1. Water Compatible Infrastructure; and 2. Essential Infrastructure (but only if exception test is passed). The entirity of the remainder of the site (that land adjacent to Flesh Hovel Lane) is designated as Zone 3A (High Probability), and residential development is prohibited there unless an "exception test" is passed. The policy states that I don't see that even the most optimistic and patient of developers would anticipate being able to develop the site for housing. One only has to look at the current news to realise that Local Authorities are hardly going to be keen to attract the bad publicity that a flooded estate will generate if they are persuaded to vary their own planning policies, nor central governement to overturn their decision on appeal. The following document is worth a read, if you have the time: https://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/documents/strategic_flood_risk_assessment_main_report/strategicfloodriskassessmentmain.pdf And the relevant map: http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/documents/figure_43_river_soar_comparison_of_flood_zone_3a_extents/figure4.3riversoar-comparisonoff.pdf Regards D_S

It's rather interesting how often the use of the marina by members of the public is mentioned in this thread, as I'm not altogether sure that such use was permitted under the planning permission which authorised the development. Although the decision notice for the 2005 outline planning permission (application P/05/0992/2) is, rather unusually, missing from Charnwood Borough Council's online planning portal, the draft prepared by the case officer contained the following imposed condition: My bold. Which would rather knock the use of the cafe by members of the public on the head. None of the subsequent grants of Full permission, or reserved matters, revoked such a clause, and indeed the most recent (2012) permission granted, for the erection of storage sheds, carried a similar condition, as follows:

Hi, A quick check of Charnwood Borough Council's planning portal indicates that planning permission for a caravan park and marina on the site, following the completion of sand and gravel extraction, was granted on 8th November 1993. If building-to-fail with a view to subsequently erecting housing was in the back of the applicants (not the current owners) minds back then it indicates a long term strategy ! Incidentally, although the original permission allowed for a number of caravans on the site, this was overturned in a 1998 decision (requesting an extension to the original planning permission) following advice from the Environment Agency that the site was on a flood plain and this posed a risk to life and property. This suggests that permission would not be forthcoming for houses. I also note from correspondance received from the applicant's agent in April 1998, that they understood that British Waterways now wished to buy the site from their clients, complete the mineral extraction, and then build and operate a marina on the site !