Permission for moorings

[NigelMoore]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Now reading the source you cited: Interesting that paras 21 and 39 seem to be inconsistent or whatever: 21 says that the canal company (now CaRT) is the riparian owner on all canals taken into its ownership whilst 39 refers to a riparian owner having to get permission from BW for an EOG mooring!

 

I'm not sure what it is about 23-26 that you consider to be untrue.

 

What was the outcome of the case?

You are not reading with your usual care. There is much that is inconsistent within Mr Johnson's Statement; he was always prone to try muddling the facts & assertions to suit his immediate and long-term agendas, relying for effect upon his widely accepted status as the most senior and reliable pundit on waterways legislation. (He was asked to contribute to the previous edition of Halsbury's Laws of England!)

 

However, para.21 does NOT say that CaRT as successor of the original canal companies is the riparian owner of both offside and towpath banks; he was emphasising ownership of bed and channel in fact, without mentioning either bank. His point (utterly false in my opinion) was that as owners of the waterways bed and channel, any boat floating thereon need the owner's permission to do so, or be so authorised by statute.

 

It was a ridiculous thing to say, because all canals were to enjoy PRN's, with the only condition being registration and payment of decreed tolls. Ownership of statutory bodies has always been irrelevant to their granted powers: they could be given powers over the property of others, or be denied powers over their own. As creatures of statute their only powers derive from statute; the common law rights and powers of natural persons do not apply.

 

Nonetheless, his para. 39 is perfectly consistent with what he falsely claims in para. 21.

 

There is nothing in para.s 23-26 I consider to be untrue. I commented that Johnson went astray in his next paragraph, I.e. his para. 27. In that he unaccountably and with no attribution declares that pleasure boats could NOT be left on the canal when not in use, unless the canal company gave permission! That, of course, was a tie-in with 21 & 39.

 

The outcome of the case, as I have already said, was a declaration that no planning consent was required for the mooring of pleasure boats to the banks of canals, because doing so was an integral part of the function of the canal – i.e. there was no 'change of use' involved needing planning permission

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

You are not reading with your usual care. There is much that is inconsistent within Mr Johnson's Statement; he was always prone to try muddling the facts & assertions to suit his immediate and long-term agendas, relying for effect upon his widely accepted status as the most senior and reliable pundit on waterways legislation. (He was asked to contribute to the previous edition of Halsbury's Laws of England!)

 

However, para.21 does NOT say that CaRT as successor of the original canal companies is the riparian owner of both offside and towpath banks; he was emphasising ownership of bed and channel in fact, without mentioning either bank. His point (utterly false in my opinion) was that as owners of the waterways bed and channel, any boat floating thereon need the owner's permission to do so, or be so authorised by statute.

 

It was a ridiculous thing to say, because all canals were to enjoy PRN's, with the only condition being registration and payment of decreed tolls. Ownership of statutory bodies has always been irrelevant to their granted powers: they could be given powers over the property of others, or be denied powers over their own. As creatures of statute their only powers derive from statute; the common law rights and powers of natural persons do not apply.

 

Nonetheless, his para. 39 is perfectly consistent with what he falsely claims in para. 21.

 

There is nothing in para.s 23-26 I consider to be untrue. I commented that Johnson went astray in his next paragraph, I.e. his para. 27. In that he unaccountably and with no attribution declares that pleasure boats could NOT be left on the canal when not in use, unless the canal company gave permission! That, of course, was a tie-in with 21 & 39.

 

The outcome of the case, as I have already said, was a declaration that no planning consent was required for the mooring of pleasure boats to the banks of canals, because doing so was an integral part of the function of the canal – i.e. there was no 'change of use' involved needing planning permission

So at least the outcome was ok I presume?

[NigelMoore]

18 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

So at least the outcome was ok I presume?

The outcome was the right one, yes.

 

BW had leased a section of canal bank to somebody for moorings, and (after a good number of years, I think) the local Council (in response I presume to complaints about scrubby boats littering the landscape) had issued 'eviction'/removal notices on the grounds that planning permission was required for the 'marina', which would be withheld on the grounds of unsuitability for the area.

 

The Council planning notices were quashed. BW publicly touted this event as an important victory, and in this case so it was.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by NigelMoore