High Court

[Josher]

Unusual to say the least - is anyone here for or against these visitor moorings?

 

Brentford canal challenge goes to High Court

 

Michael Donnelly, PlanningResource, 7 July 2010 here.

 

A Brentford Councillor has launched a High Court fight to block plans for visitor moorings on the River Brent which he claims will jeopardise plans to promote use of the waterways for transport of freight and waste.

 

Nigel Moore is hoping to persuade judge Mr Justice Wyn Williams to quash a planning inspector's decision to grant planning permission for a leisure and visitor moorings at River Brent Moorings, Ferry Quay, Brentford, on the North bank of the River Brent where it meets the Thames.

 

Community councillor Moore, who is supported by ward councillor John Hardy, chair of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Planning Committee, as well as others opposed to the proposal, claims that the inspector failed to impose sufficient safeguards to prevent encroachment into navigational channels in what is a key junction between the Thames and the West London canal network.

 

He argues that government policies promote the increased use of Britain's waterways for transporting freight and waste, in order to alleviate pressure on the country's roads.

 

However, he claims that the development of these moorings will only be safe if the current low levels of freight using this waterway are maintained.

 

As a result, he says that the development inhibits promotion of waterborne freight along the River Brent.

 

The inspector concluded that it currently sees very little such traffic, and that there are no firm plans for that to increase.

 

But Moore says that, in reaching that conclusion, the inspector failed to grapple properly with the issue of potential increase in freight use of the waterway, and failed to give adequate reasons explaining his decision.

 

He says that the inspector failed to ensure that the development was subject to a condition restricting the extent to which the development could encroach into the navigational channel.

 

Moore hopes the judge will order the secretary of state Eric Pickles, to have the matter reconsidered.

 

The judge's ruling will be given at a later date.

[Tim]

Does Mr Moore own a house there?

[Dekazer]

I recently tried (unsuccessfully, so gave up - such a quitter) to find out when the next BW West London User Group meeting us.

 

Anyone here know? I would have thought they might be aware of this, although perhaps not as it's on the river?

[David Schweizer]

This Councillor is wasting his and our time and money. I really cannot understand why people cannot judge things by the prevailing conditions rather that the conditions they think should be in place.

 

The Planning Inspector can only make his assessment based upon the evidence presented to him, ie. little commercial traffic at present, and no propsoals to increase it. If traffic does increase in the future, the need to review the consent may become neccessary.

Edited July 7, 2010 by David Schweizer

[Josher]

Boaters await High Court ruling over plans to moor vessels at mouth of River Brent

3:25pm Friday 9th July 2010 R&T Times

 

 

Boaters are due to find out today whether the High Court will allow vessels to moor by the mouth of the River Brent.

 

Campaigners launched a legal battle to try and block the proposal, which they claim would partially obstruct Ferry Quay, in Brentford, and make it dangerous for boats to navigate the waterway.

 

Nigel Moore, chairman of Brentford Waterside Forum, said he felt after a court hearing on Tuesday that Mr Justice Williams would rule that visitors can moor where the river joins the Thames.

 

He said: “I was opposed to the moorings because the positioning of them right on the junction was recognised by everybody concerned some years back as presenting a danger.

 

“It did create a problem for the safety of any vessels coming through, especially on an ebbing tide. Common sense tells you if they are going to narrow the approach then that’s going to make it more difficult. It’s not rocket science.

 

“Any increase in freight traffic, especially barges, would present a great danger not only to the barges but also boats using the pontoons.

 

“Barges can bash each other together and nobody will care, but if you’ve got a small narrow boat getting walloped because the tide is pushing them, no matter how skillful the skipper is he will not be able to prevent something happening.”

 

Regents Network, which campaigns to bring London’s waterways “back to life”, said the proposal would block more than one-third of the river mouth, making navigation dangerous and threatening the development of water freight transport.

 

Mr Moore hopes to quash a Government planning inspector’s decision to grant permission for leisure and visitor moorings at Ferry Quay, on the north bank of the River Brent.

 

He claimed the inspector failed to impose sufficient safeguards to prevent encroachment into navigational channels in the key junction between the Thames and the west London canal network.

 

He said Government policies promote the increased use of Britain’s waterways for transporting freight and waste in order to alleviate pressure on the country’s roads.

 

But the moorings would only be safe if the current low levels of freight using the passage are maintained, he added.

 

British Waterways, which backs the proposal, believed the new scheme would enhance the attractiveness and use of the river without having a negative impact on traffic.

[Josher]

Judge dismisses Brent river moorings appeal

 

Court correspondent, Planning Resource 14 July 2010

 

A community representative has failed in a High Court fight to block plans for visitor moorings on the River Brent which he claimed will jeopardise government plans to promote use of the waterways for transport of freight and waste.

 

Nigel Moore had hoped to persuade judge Mr Justice Wyn Williams to quash a planning inspector's decision to grant planning permission for a leisure and visitor moorings at River Brent Moorings, Ferry Quay, Brentford, on the north bank of the River Brent where it meets the Thames.

 

Mr Moore, a member of the Brentford Community Council, was supported by ward Councillor John Hardy, chair of Hounslow Council’s Isleworth and Brentford Area Planning Committee, as well as others opposed to the proposal.

 

He claimed that the inspector failed to impose sufficient safeguards to prevent encroachment into navigational channels in what is a key junction between the Thames and the West London canal network.

 

He argued that government policies promote the increased use of Britain's waterways for transporting freight and waste, in order to alleviate pressure on the country's roads.

 

He claimed that the development of these moorings will only be safe if the current low levels of freight using this waterway are maintained, and that, as a result, the development would inhibit promotion of waterborne freight along the River Brent.

 

However, now the judge has rejected Mr Moore's challenge.

 

Backing the inspector's decision, he ruled: "It is true that increased use of the river by freight traffic was supported by national policy.

 

"However, there was no evidence before the inspector so far as I can discern from which she could sensibly predict whether and, just as importantly, when any increase in freight traffic on this river would increase by more than a negligible amount.

 

"Further, the expert evidence adduced before the inspector to deal with the issues of risk assessment did not advance the proposition that the proposed development was objectionable in principle.

 

"The expert evidence proceeded on the basis that if the proposed development was granted permission and if there was an increase in the use of the river unconnected with the development greater precautionary measures to regulate the traffic on the river would or at least may become necessary.

 

"There was no suggestion in the expert evidence adduced before the inspector that the proposed development together with an increase in the use of the rivers by freight traffic was, inevitably, objectionable."

 

He continued: "In these circumstances the Inspector was fully entitled to conclude, as she did, that the potential future use of the river by freight vessels was not a compelling reason which justified the refusal of the permission.

 

"It is also to be observed that the inspector concluded that the proposed development was not merely unobjectionable in principle but also provided positive benefits; further it accorded with local policy relating to recreational development.

 

"None of these findings are or could be criticised and, accordingly, such positive benefits had to be weighed against any negative effects of the development.

 

"In my judgment, the inspector's conclusion that the potential future use of the river by freight vessels was not a compelling reason for refusal was well within the discretion afforded to her in light of the positive benefits of the proposed development which she identified."

 

The development which has now won the judge's backing will see leisure moorings along 180 metres of the river, with a further 22 metres set aside for visitor moorings.

 

The judge said that the moorings together with any moored vessel would intrude between five and six metres into the navigable waters of the river.

[carlt]

It is always important to make sure that the backhander is for services provided rather than a positive outcome.

[Josher]

Does Mr Moore own a house there?

 

10/10 Tim!

 

New slant in this press report:

 

 

Houseboat man fails in high court battle

 

A BRENTFORD houseboat owner has failed in a high court battle to block plans for visitor moorings on the River Brent.

 

Nigel Moore, a Community Councillor and waterways advisor, hoped to persuade Judge Mr Justice Wyn Williams, to quash a Government planning inspector's decision to grant permission for the moorings at Ferry Quay, on the north bank of the river where it meets the Thames.

 

Mr Moore fears the development will jeopardise Government plans to promote use of the waterways for transport of freight and waste ... full report..

[Josher]

... and finally!

 

Court of Appeal rejects Brent river moorings challenge Planning Resource Monday, 17 January 2011

 

A Brentford community representative who claimed plans for visitor moorings on the River Brent would jeopardise government plans to promote use of the waterways had his challenge to the scheme rejected by the Court of Appeal.

 

Nigel Moore had hoped to persuade judge Lord Justice Sullivan to grant him permission to appeal against a High Court ruling last July, in which judge Mr Justice Wyn Williams backed a government planning inspector's decision to grant planning permission for a leisure and visitor moorings at River Brent Moorings, Ferry Quay, Brentford, on the north bank of the River Brent where it meets the Thames. Moore claimed that the inspector failed to impose sufficient safeguards to prevent encroachment into navigational channels in what is a key junction between the Thames and the west London canal network.

 

He argued that government policies promote the increased use of Britain's waterways for transporting freight and waste, in order to alleviate pressure on the country's roads. He claimed that the development of these moorings will only be safe if the current low levels of freight using this waterway are maintained, and that, as a result, the development would inhibit promotion of waterborne freight along the River Brent.

 

However, the High Court judge rejected Moore's challenge, ruling: "It is true that increased use of the river by freight traffic was supported by national policy. However, there was no evidence before the Inspector so far as I can discern from which she could sensibly predict whether and, just as importantly, when any increase in freight traffic on this river would increase by more than a negligible amount.

 

Refusing Moore permission to appeal, Lord Justice Sullivan said he agreed with the High Court judge. He said: "The inspector was entitled to conclude that this general policy was not a compelling reason to dismiss the appeal. That is readily understandable, since she had concluded that there would be advantages in character and appearance terms in promoting the development."

 

The development, which has now won the judge's backing, will see leisure moorings along 180 metres of the river, with a further 22 metres set aside for visitor moorings. The moorings together with any moored vessel would intrude between 5 and 6 metres into the navigable waters of the river.