Beaker Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) To which nations was he referring? He was Irish, was he not? USA and England, yes, he was Irish. ETA OK, he may have said Great Britain, but that isn't a country, is it? Edited January 27, 2014 by Beaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john6767 Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I don't think so. CRT have exhausted all avenues available to them and revoked the NAA. It is in the hands of CRT to decide the marina's destiny now, by entering into a new NAA,or not. I can see no reason for them to enter into one with a company controlled by Paul Lillie and I doubt CRT do either. They have terminated negotiations. I guess at this point that is true, but what I was pointing out that it was not CRT's choice to deny access in the first place, it was the lack of payment for the NAA that caused that. The current state is that their is no access, so that has to go one way or the other with a new NAA or the access is physically closed. I would have thought that CRT would prefer that it was the former, despite everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willber G Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I don't think so. CRT have exhausted all avenues available to them and revoked the NAA. It is in the hands of CRT to decide the marina's destiny now, by entering into a new NAA,or not. I can see no reason for them to enter into one with a company controlled by Paul Lillie and I doubt CRT do either. They have terminated negotiations. I would imagine if QMH/QMP/PLM offered CRT £185k in full settlement of the court ruling then CRT would step back and renegotiate a new NAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray T Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Who said that 'Two nations divided by a common language' thing? Richard US newspaper The Morgantown Post, 1958, an article by Holmes Alexander: "The British regarded us then as well-meaning but blundering intercessors whom they rather preferred to have on their island than the Jerries. We were, in the well-known phrase, 'overpaid, oversexed and over here', and we were in British eyes overdecorated, overstaffed, overmaintenanced and overbearing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen n Ink Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I would imagine if QMH/QMP/PLM offered CRT £185k in full settlement of the court ruling then CRT would step back and renegotiate a new NAA. Just a minor detail I know, but let's not forget that at this stage CRT have required the marina to sever its own access with immediate effect, and only if they don't do it by April will CRT do it for them… CRT have in fact been reasonable enough and magnanimous enough to allow a significant window for the boaters to extricate themselves before the cutoff... Clearly at this stage I don't suppose CRT would care WHO pays the debt, but I'm not sure why anyone else other than the Marina operator / owner would want to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 US newspaper The Morgantown Post, 1958, an article by Holmes Alexander: "The British regarded us then as well-meaning but blundering intercessors whom they rather preferred to have on their island than the Jerries. We were, in the well-known phrase, 'overpaid, oversexed and over here', and we were in British eyes overdecorated, overstaffed, overmaintenanced and overbearing." Funny how some things never change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willber G Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 ...Clearly at this stage I don't suppose CRT would care WHO pays the debt, but I'm not sure why anyone else other than the Marina operator / owner would want to do so. QMH/QMP/PLM are effectively the same group people regardless of the official directorships as far as I can make out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelMoore Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 As a matter of genuine curiosity - the boaters who move out, validly licensed, onto the mainstream prior to any cut-off: at what point, if any, could the authority decide that the moorings for which some had paid a year or even 25 years or so in advance, were no longer [as a result of CaRT's own action], available to the licence holders as a place where the boats could reasonably be kept and lawfully left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 As a matter of genuine curiosity - the boaters who move out, validly licensed, onto the mainstream prior to any cut-off: at what point, if any, could the authority decide that the moorings for which some had paid a year or even 25 years or so in advance, were no longer [as a result of CaRT's own action], available to the licence holders as a place where the boats could reasonably be kept and lawfully left? Now that's just plain mischievous Nigel! My guess would be, given CRT's ultra-reasonable behaviour so far on this, at the end of each boat's licence period whenever that might be. MtB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilly Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 As a matter of genuine curiosity - the boaters who move out, validly licensed, onto the mainstream prior to any cut-off: at what point, if any, could the authority decide that the moorings for which some had paid a year or even 25 years or so in advance, were no longer [as a result of CaRT's own action], available to the licence holders as a place where the boats could reasonably be kept and lawfully left? That is a very good point Nigel, and I see where you're going with it, but it would very much depend on who the parties to the contract are. This has not yet (as far as I am aware) been made explicit. It looks to me like the success or failure of any litigation in this matter will be decided on contract law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen n Ink Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) As a matter of genuine curiosity - the boaters who move out, validly licensed, onto the mainstream prior to any cut-off: at what point, if any, could the authority decide that the moorings for which some had paid a year or even 25 years or so in advance, were no longer [as a result of CaRT's own action], available to the licence holders as a place where the boats could reasonably be kept and lawfully left? Interesting point. The obvious answer would seem to be "immediately" - if there is no access to a marina which effectively has ceased to exist as far as CRT are concerned then the licensee can't moor there! ETA - Blimey you have to be quick round here! Crossed with two above! Edited January 27, 2014 by Pen n Ink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I would imagine if QMH/QMP/PLM offered CRT £185k in full settlement of the court ruling then CRT would step back and renegotiate a new NAA. And why would they want to do that, given the bloody nose they got last time they did business with a Lillie-controlled company? MtB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Paul G., on 26 Jan 2014 - 4:47 PM, said: I've tried to be quite upfront about the fact that I know nothing about UK law. I would posit, though, that the planning/zoning/subdivision processes are quite similar in most industrialized nations. The whole process of land use and development, as tedious as it might be, is a quite logical process and there isn't whole lot of reason that it would vary much from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It was only 24 hours ago but several pages back. UK planning law was pretty much totally re-written in 1947 to accomodate changes in housing and industrial requirements after the war, this legislation (the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act) has been amended a number of times Later revisions of the Act were legislated in 1962, 1971 and 1990. The act was re-written (again) in 1990 and whilst the 1990 Act is the current legislation, this Act has been substantially amended and added to, especially in 1991, 2004, 2008 and 2011. It now bears absolutely no resemblance to any planning policy of 'a few 100 years ago'. I have recently been involved in a case that was resolved under Sectionn 55 of the T&C Planning Act 1990 where it states that any land or building thereon can be used as agricultural land without the need for planning permission. It took an MP and QC to finally convice the Planning Authorities I was correct. As an extreme example of what this means - the owner of a building in the middle of a city can change the use to agricultural (can store Tractors or fertiliser in it, could knock it down and plant trees, or clear the ground and keep sheep) without the need for planning permission, or even the need to inform the Local Authority Planning Department of their intentions. Court Case : North Warwickshire Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1984) JPL 434, found the the rights afforded by the sub-section also extended to any building occupied together with agricultural land. The Encyclopaedia notes that: "Thus an intensive agricultural use may be introduced to an existing building in an urban area without need of planning permission (though subject to public health and nuisance controls)" I'd be surprised if that appears in the USA Planning Regulations - it did not appear in the UK regulations until post WW2 Edited January 27, 2014 by Alan de Enfield 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willber G Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 And why would they want to do that, given the bloody nose they got last time they did business with a Lillie-controlled company? MtB Because I think it is the only way they can get out of this without losing a lot of money. The alternative seems to be starting again with a phoenix company of the same ilk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen n Ink Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Because I think it is the only way they can get out of this without losing a lot of money. The alternative seems to be starting again with a phoenix company of the same ilk. No - the alternative is for CRT to refuse to deal with (grant access to) anyone who had been previously involved, and to hold out until the marina has been sold to some new party who they feel that they CAN deal with confidently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Rider Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 As a matter of genuine curiosity - the boaters who move out, validly licensed, onto the mainstream prior to any cut-off: at what point, if any, could the authority decide that the moorings for which some had paid a year or even 25 years or so in advance, were no longer [as a result of CaRT's own action], available to the licence holders as a place where the boats could reasonably be kept and lawfully left? They would be available ----- with a crane & lorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willber G Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) No - the alternative is for CRT to refuse to deal with (grant access to) anyone who had been previously involved, and to hold out until the marina has been sold to some new party who they feel that they CAN deal with confidently... The problem with that is QMP (with whom the NAA was signed) sits in the middle of the QMH/QMP/PLM sandwich, all three of which are controlled by the same people who I don't think would accept a completely separate company to fit into their cosy set up (and who would want to get involved anyway?). If the marina is to survive then either a/ CRT accept a settlement from QMP or b/ CRT deal with a phoenix QMP. The former seems to be the lesser of two evils. Edited January 27, 2014 by Willber G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlt Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Because I think it is the only way they can get out of this without losing a lot of money. I wouldn't describe it as "getting out of it without losing a lot of money". I'd say it was more "getting out of it without paying their debts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac of Cygnet Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I wouldn't describe it as "getting out of it without losing a lot of money". I'd say it was more "getting out of it without paying their debts". I think it was CRT being referred to, not PLM. Just to salvage my own confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen n Ink Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 The problem with that is QMP (with whom the NAA was signed) sits in the middle of the QMH/QMP/PLM sandwich, all three of which are controlled by the same people who I don't think would accept a completely separate company to fit into their cosy set up. Pre-sakkly! An argument if there ever was one for the current owners to sell outright to a new, uninvolved third party to start all over again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willber G Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I wouldn't describe it as "getting out of it without losing a lot of money". I'd say it was more "getting out of it without paying their debts". I was talking about CRT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dor Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 As a matter of genuine curiosity - the boaters who move out, validly licensed, onto the mainstream prior to any cut-off: at what point, if any, could the authority decide that the moorings for which some had paid a year or even 25 years or so in advance, were no longer [as a result of CaRT's own action], available to the licence holders as a place where the boats could reasonably be kept and lawfully left? Aren't the long term leases for a car-parking space though? Not strictly for a marina berth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlt Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I think it was CRT being referred to, not PLM. Just to salvage my own confusion. Yes you're right. I have read too much of the thread in one go, in order to catch up, and am thoroughly befuddled. I was talking about CRT. I know now. My apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willber G Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Yes you're right. I have read too much of the thread in one go, in order to catch up, and am thoroughly befuddled. I know now. My apologies. No problem. I suppose the best thing to do is wait and see what happens (unless someone is unlucky enough to be stuck in the middle). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlt Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Aren't the long term leases for a car-parking space though? Not strictly for a marina berth. I cannot imagine a scenario where someone would coax me into paying a huge sum of money for a car parking space disguised as a mooring without me thinking at some stage "What could possibly go wrong?" or "If it looks like a scam, swims like a scam and quacks like a scam..." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now