On 05/03/2008, Ron Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. I just want to make it clear that I did not write a single word of that which you quoted.
