|
Post by loafer on Nov 15, 2017 21:19:15 GMT
Yes, Nick, I'm already there with the old codger bit! BUT BUT - I understand that it is the LAND under the water that can be considered private too. In which case, since I don't have to pay EOG charges, I believe that I don't need a license if I don't stray out of the winding hole mooring. Any help? I have tried to look this up for myself, but can't find the answer. OK I lied. I was hoping you guys could answer the question without me looking it up. Love to all, that is all! I DID answer your question, top of this page. Your post was already at the top of my page, and I'm not sure which of your posts answered my question. I am not taking the piss or anything - can you quote it for me? Sorry to be an arse.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 15, 2017 21:54:08 GMT
. . . answering the immediately pertinent question as to whether a licence is required if moored on private water [which is what a lay-by or ‘winding hole’ has created], rather than mooring to a private wharf merely alongside the canal, then you would not need one – CaRT could not legally demand that, any more than they could deny a riparian owner the right to create such a facility on private land in the first place. They would, of course, and I am in such a current disgust with the Courts at the moment, that I would expect them to support CaRT come what may – even if the judges DID recognise the legal realities. Apropos, the judgment in BW v Yardley Gobion marina recognised the rights of riparian owners to create such private waterspace under the relevant Acts [it only denied that the right extended to constructing full-scale marinas]. Understandably, however, BW/CaRT refuse to disclose the judgment [they claim not to even know about it]. Read more: thunderboat.boards.net/thread/2646/time-continuous-cruiser?page=4#ixzz4yXWwegL2
|
|