Adrian Stott wrote: > "Bob Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand that these moorings were let by BW as non-residential > > However, I am informed that a number of these moorings are being used > residentially. This has been confirmed by public pronouncements by > some of the moorers, that I have seen reported in a manner I believe > to be credible, and used in the moorers' campaign as a significant > part of their justification for rejecting the alternative nearby > (non-residential) moorings offered them by BW. . > > This falls within my definition of a violation of terms.
I might suspect BW not wanting to use the "R" word. I note that where we are now, BWML have set up three classes of mooring. Class 1 - High usage mooring with phone, 16A electric, post to the marina, use of car park Class 2 - Medium usage mooring with 8A electric, use of car park. Class 3 - Occasional usage mooring, use of car park if spaces allow. Cost of Class 3 is similar to last owner's rate, class 2 a few percent higher than 3, class 1 15-20% higher than 3. The number of Class 1 is close to the existing "high usage", the rest will be class 2, with a very few class 3. The "R" word is deliberately avoided. -- Ron Jones Process Safety & Development Specialist Don't repeat history, unreported chemical lab/plant near misses at http://www.crhf.org.uk Only two things are certain: The universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. ~ Albert Einstein
