The following is from paragraph 65 of the 2015 High Court decision in relation to the development at Jenner's Basin, where the judge states, after reviewing all the previous planning permissions and planning history, that the section 52 agreement - the covenant - upon which Mr Wood has based his grounds for planning permission does not in fact authorise mooring.  The covenant can be found here and the plan relating to it is here.

The High Court Judge stated:

"In this case, as a matter of undisputed fact, after the planning permissions for the operational development comprised in the commercial boatyard had been granted and implemented, two supervening events occurred, both of which the inspector regarded as significant – as he explained in paragraphs 32 to 34 of the decision letter. First, the commercial boatyard itself ceased to exist. Jenners vacated the site. The boatsheds were later pulled down. All the buildings and structures on the site were removed, apart from the basin and the bridge. Secondly, in March 1985, when residential development on land on the other side of the river was granted planning permission, a restriction was imposed on the use of the island site in an agreement made under section 52 of the 1971 Act. The first of those two events had a physical and practical effect – nothing less than the transformation of the island site. The demolition of the boatyard buildings ended their use for the purpose for which they had been designed.

"The second event, the section 52 agreement, had a legal effect. It was, as the inspector said in paragraph 32 of his letter, “intended to ensure the permanent cessation of all commercial activity on the appeal site”. As he recognized in paragraph 33, it thus became impossible to use the basin “for boatyard purposes” under the planning permissions originally granted for its construction. For a commercial boatyard to be recreated on the island site and that use of the site revived, a fresh grant of planning permission would have been required. Even if such permission were now to be granted, the use of the basin for any purpose other then “the mooring of private boats” would be prevented by the section 52 agreement. And, as the inspector added in paragraph 34, the section 52 agreement did not itself, and could not, have the effect of granting planning permission for a private mooring use."