|
Post by thebfg on Jul 10, 2021 9:37:50 GMT
Fair point. Now when the council make the decision they cannot ignore the recommendations from the report they sanctioned. Unlike crt the council will have to do it by the book. Councils have powers to request byelaws. This route already has at least two precedents in terms of banning mooring on council owned land beside rivers. Hounslow and Richmond. The other approach is PSPO which I think Oxford tried but did not succeed as far I as I know. I'm sure the council will try something. Whether they would s But that is doing it by the book. They won't until a new suitable location is found. They can't find one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2021 9:40:26 GMT
Councils have powers to request byelaws. This route already has at least two precedents in terms of banning mooring on council owned land beside rivers. Hounslow and Richmond. The other approach is PSPO which I think Oxford tried but did not succeed as far I as I know. I'm sure the council will try something. Whether they would s But that is doing it by the book. They won't until a new suitable location is found. They can't find one. A new suitable location? In the case of Richmond and Hounslow they just used a big hammer and now anyone stopping on any of their land is committing an offence. Problem dealt with. NigelMoore knew more about me than this but I remember Hounslow just copied Richmond. I don't really see why other councils can't do similar. Maybe they don't want to look after their council tax payers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2021 9:46:15 GMT
So we are not talking about boats moored to council land with local objections then. I must have got wrong end of stick. Again. Whatever. Your rambling reply was nothing more than gossip fodder. The two situations are totally different in that one was a problem that needed to be sorted, and almost everyone agreed, even boat owners. This present case was a few locals attempting to develop a problem that did not exist, (other than in their tiny minds). Perhaps you should read the thread again and grasp some of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 10, 2021 9:58:10 GMT
Mead Lane moorings are recognised 14 day moorings provided by the council.
The council agreed to Agree to a long-term aspiration to relocate moorings from Mead Lane – with a target date of 31st December 2022, and.
Ensure that suitable alternative moorings are identified and in place prior to reducing further any moorings at Mead Lane.
They can't find a suitable alternative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2021 10:04:29 GMT
Technically, nobody lost, . . and the only winners were the lawyers who pocketed their fees. The article reporting the proceedings on the K&A website states that the application before the Court was for Judicial Review, and the JR was 'stayed' - in other words temporarily halted whilst the local (BaNES) Council reconsiders its position. The powers available to the local Council to control the mooring of boats exercising the common law PRN applicable to the river Avon within the area administered by the Council is limited to action for trespass and/or adverse possession of the land it owns or controls adjoining the river - ie. the river bank - and, arguably, of the parts of the river bed above which any boat is moored at any given time. Given that the threat by the Council to "close the moorings" was a meaningless one in practical terms, . . nothing permanent or tangible has been achieved or guaranteed through the Judicial Review process. The report on the K&A website also states that in reviewing its position regarding the Mead Lane, Saltford moorings, the BaNES Council will be consulting the C&RT, . . so, no prizes for predicting how that will go ! nobody, but nobody, gives a shit on what you think How true
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 10, 2021 13:29:19 GMT
I had seen it was going to court. The village nimbys lost! Technically, nobody lost, . . and the only winners were the lawyers who pocketed their fees. The article reporting the proceedings on the K&A website states that the application before the Court was for Judicial Review, and the JR was 'stayed' - in other words temporarily halted whilst the local (BaNES) Council reconsiders its position. The powers available to the local Council to control the mooring of boats exercising the common law PRN applicable to the river Avon within the area administered by the Council is limited to action for trespass and/or adverse possession of the land it owns or controls adjoining the river - ie. the river bank - and, arguably, of the parts of the river bed above which any boat is moored at any given time. Given that the threat by the Council to "close the moorings" was a meaningless one in practical terms, . . nothing permanent or tangible has been achieved or guaranteed through the Judicial Review process. The report on the K&A website also states that in reviewing its position regarding the Mead Lane, Saltford moorings, the BaNES Council will be consulting the C&RT, . . so, no prizes for predicting how that will go ! If anyone capable of reading and understanding the above post has any cogent arguments to counter anything I've said, then I'm quite happy to listen and respond to whatever they have to say, . . . and that includes the vacuous gobshite who doesn't understand the difference between Judicial Review and an Injunction -- page 1 of this thread -- " Good result, and hopefully will set an example of how easy it is to start an injunction." .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2021 14:59:31 GMT
Technically, nobody lost, . . and the only winners were the lawyers who pocketed their fees. The article reporting the proceedings on the K&A website states that the application before the Court was for Judicial Review, and the JR was 'stayed' - in other words temporarily halted whilst the local (BaNES) Council reconsiders its position. The powers available to the local Council to control the mooring of boats exercising the common law PRN applicable to the river Avon within the area administered by the Council is limited to action for trespass and/or adverse possession of the land it owns or controls adjoining the river - ie. the river bank - and, arguably, of the parts of the river bed above which any boat is moored at any given time. Given that the threat by the Council to "close the moorings" was a meaningless one in practical terms, . . nothing permanent or tangible has been achieved or guaranteed through the Judicial Review process. The report on the K&A website also states that in reviewing its position regarding the Mead Lane, Saltford moorings, the BaNES Council will be consulting the C&RT, . . so, no prizes for predicting how that will go ! If anyone capable of reading and understanding the above post has any cogent arguments to counter anything I've said, then I'm quite happy to listen and respond to whatever they have to say, . . . and that includes the vacuous gobshite who doesn't understand the difference between Judicial Review and an Injunction -- page 1 of this thread -- " Good result, and hopefully will set an example of how easy it is to start an injunction." .You would have a great deal more respect if you decided to not engage with all the insults and abuse. Not just this forum neither.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 10, 2021 18:24:52 GMT
I'm not sure what point your making Tony. Stayed?
The Council decided to remove the moorings sometime end of last year with 21 days notice to close them.
A JR was started which was adjourned and the judge ordered the council to review its decision.
They reviewed it and the moorings are to become available again.
When the council carries out another review I suspect it won't legally be able to come to the same conclusion as the first.
I see that as a win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2021 19:33:15 GMT
And then they look at the issue more closely and get a byelaw to ban mooring
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 11, 2021 6:30:09 GMT
I'm not sure what point your making Tony. Stayed? The Council decided to remove the moorings sometime end of last year with 21 days notice to close them. A JR was started which was adjourned and the judge ordered the council to review its decision. They reviewed it and the moorings are to become available again. When the council carries out another review I suspect it won't legally be able to come to the same conclusion as the first. I see that as a win. My earlier comments were based on reporting going back to January 2020 (not a typo) on the Kennet and Avon Boating Community Website [< kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk >], and from recent published material from the law firm - Community Law Partnership [CLP] - that actually filed the claim for Judicial Review, whereas the the link posted to start off this topic merely takes you to some typically misleading second-rate reporting in a local rag from 6 July 2021. To say nothing regarding the standing or worth of the opinion of the vacuous gobshite who can't differentiate between an Injunction and a JR (page 1, post#6), the reliability of the local rag reporting can be gauged from the article headline the link takes you to -- "Boaters set to be allowed back to river after rethink on mooring ban" -- which speaks volumes as to the level of understanding of the situation obtained by both the OP and the newspaper reporter, . . given that the Avon is a publicly navigable [PRN] river, and the fact that even if BaNES Council was the navigation authority it would NOT have the powers or authority to deny or permit the use of the river, including mooring, under any circumstances. The CLP, via the KandA website, has reported that the JR was 'stayed', a procedure under rule 26.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules frequently utilized by the Courts to save Court time whereby proceedings are simply halted to provide the parties with the time and opportunity to resolve the matter in hand without taking up any further Court time. Contrary to the tripe reported in the local Somerset rag on 6 July 2021, BaNES Council will not have been 'ordered' to review, or to rescind its original decision regarding the Mead Lane, Saltford moorings. What the Court has done, according to the KandA and CLP reporting, is simply to make an Order that the JR be 'stayed' -- ie. proceedings merely suspended, and NOT concluded -- giving both parties to the JR the opportunity to resolve the matter with any further involvement on the part of the Court. As a consequence of the proceedings being 'stayed' rather than 'disposed of' by way of a judgement 'Order' at the recent hearing, there is no formal or binding obligation on either party to the proceedings to do or to comply with anything. As I said earlier, . . nobody lost, and nobody won, . . except for the lawyers who collected their fees !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 8:33:23 GMT
. given that the Avon is a publicly navigable [PRN] river, and the fact that even if BaNES Council was the navigation authority it would NOT have the powers or authority to deny or permit the use of the river, including mooring, under any circumstances. That's an interesting claim. How does it work with Richmond (LBRUT) who are not a navigation authority yet do now have powers to permit (actually to prohibit but it's the same power being exercised) -mooring- on a PRN river (the Thames). Are they bluffing ? I believe your last three words are incorrect. I remember Ham Lands mooring just above Teddington weir before anyone moored there long term, then it turned into a boat village with rowdy dogs, littering, dodgy vehicles badly parked etc then mooring was banned via byelaw.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 11, 2021 8:42:09 GMT
[PRN] river, and the fact that even if BaNES Council was the navigation authority it would NOT have the powers or authority to deny or permit the use of the river, including mooring, under any circumstances. As I said earlier, . . nobody lost, and nobody won, . . except for the lawyers who collected their fees ! Are you saying that a riparian owner cannot prevent someone mooring on their land on a prn river? So the council aren't reviewing their decision then and mead Lane moorings have been closed? If no then that is a win of sorts against the original decision to close the moorings, regardless of whether they are entitled to or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 8:44:38 GMT
It's an interesting claim from TD that mooring is part of the PRN. I think it is sort of correct in the sense you would have to be able to stop overnight but I'm reluctant to take legal advise from someone whose actions have caused the loss of his own boat.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 11, 2021 9:19:47 GMT
For clarity it was only the mooring between November and February that was being banned.
The 48 hour moorings have already gone and aren't in the scope of this Jr( as far as I can see)
The decision to not allow mooring this winter has been reversed and a proper review will happen.
Regardless of any authority to close the moorings for the winter, they did. Boats will be moored during the winter, how that isn't(albeit a temporary) win I do not know.
Interestingly there is no mention of it being a prn river in the decision by BaNES or any mention of having to allow reasonable mooring on its land.
That last paragraph I find interesting, wouldn't that be the first defence in the attempt of removing moorings?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 11, 2021 11:10:37 GMT
. . . . . . . . . I'm reluctant to take legal advise from someone whose actions have caused the loss of his own boat. Before addressing the queries just raised on the previous page of this thread, it's perhaps worth pointing out, yet again, that "Halcyon Daze" hasn't been 'lost', . . except perhaps in the same sense that anyone can, either temporarily or permanently, 'lose' a car or other possessions by way of having them stolen. There is a world of difference between losing a boat, and title to it, by way of the legitimate exercising of statutory powers entitling a navigation authority to 'remove' an offending vessel that falls into any one of the categories qualifying it for lawful removal specified under some appropriate piece of legislation, . . and having a boat systematically, and technically, stolen by a rogue organization, the Canal & River Trust, committing criminal acts and civil wrongs whilst hiding behind the pretence of acting lawfully under the very statutory powers it is knowingly abusing and exceeding under the directing minds of CEO Richard Parry and Company Secretary Tom Deards.
|
|