WRC Wins Mooring Appeal

[Vaughan]

This seems to have escaped the forum so far, but James Knight posted on Facebook on 2nd November to say that their appeal against the temporary nature of the residential mooring permission in their basin has been upheld by the planning inspectorate.

He says :

The planning inspector, correctly in our view, found that the temporary condition was unreasonable, unnecessary, imprecise and un-enforceable.

He also says :

We hope this decision will allay the fears of prospective residents and we look forward to welcoming residential berth holders in the future.

This could be a significant decision, by the sound of it!

[JennyMorgan]

As I understand it there is consent for only ten residential boats at the WRC, despite the Authority itself suggesting that there is a need for at least sixty such berths on the Broads. Yet another expensive appeal lost by the Authority, an increasingly poor record in my opinion. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JennyMorgan said:

As I understand it there is consent for only ten residential boats at the WRC, despite the Authority itself suggesting that there is a need for at least sixty such berths on the Broads. Yet another expensive appeal lost by the Authority, an increasingly poor record in my opinion. 

Rather begs the question as y where the other 50 or so moorings are going to be if indeed BA are going to be realistic about living afloat , over the yrs there's been plenty of voice's on this subject , half the problem with that is the loudest shouting members ( not here I hasten to add ) have always said get them off the river basically for selfish reasons but they don't want them in their marina either again for selfish reasons , thing is without massive investment for new marinas then if BA are serious and I'll wait a bit longer to make a judgement on that , then if they need 60+ places then they will need to be in existing marinas , now its unlikely that BA will get their way with imposing ridiculous limitations are they really that interested in providing these moorings subject to marina owner's wanting a number of live aboard moorings , as I said I'm waiting for more evidence from BA as to actually doing something , identifying a set number of moorings is required is the easy part doing something proactive about is entirely different .

That said huge congratulations to WRC in winning the appeal I just wish the planning department would stop and think once in a while and above all stop wasting countless thousands on ridiculous conditions .

[Islander]

This decision is very welcome news for those that are looking for a residential mooring.

It now means the BA planners will have to take into account that WRC was neither in or adjacent to development boundary. One of the criteria they would have used not to renew the temporary planning. Good news for other boatyards outside development boundaries.

Well done James. That's the yurts and residential planning issues resolved, now it's only the 'temporary' construction access. Maybe a big white tent?

Colin

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Islander said:

This decision is very welcome news for those that are looking for a residential mooring.

It now means the BA planners will have to take into account that WRC was neither in or adjacent to development boundary. One of the criteria they would have used not to renew the temporary planning. Good news for other boatyards outside development boundaries.

Well done James. That's the yurts and residential planning issues resolved, now it's only the 'temporary' construction access. Maybe a big white tent?

Colin

Oh no not the big white tent , JP has said in the last week elsewhere that it doesn't require planning permission because its not a fixed structure and I believe temporary , if its not fixed then exactly how come it hasn't blown away ? As for temporary what exactly is temporary 4 yrs 8 yrs or forever ? Thing is it does make it incredibly difficult for BA to prosecute others for exactly the same thing , as iv always said if your own house isn't in order you can't hit out at others , incidentally a planning team visited the site and the sum total of their findings were the tent is there and its being used and that's it ! 

One law for one and another for everyone else springs to mind .