Mercurial > hg > rsof
comparison MHMC/2025-10-20/ward_renshaw.txt @ 644:57c0b1592367
now with background/draft minutes
| author | Henry S Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| date | Mon, 20 Oct 2025 11:49:38 +0100 |
| parents | |
| children |
comparison
equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
| 643:504d9d8d4e06 | 644:57c0b1592367 |
|---|---|
| 1 Correspondance between Martin Ward (MW), Clerk to AM Trustees and John | |
| 2 Renshaw (JR), contracted to carry out the Quinquennial Review. | |
| 3 | |
| 4 MW, 23 September: | |
| 5 | |
| 6 Thank you for all of the documents which you sent through on 29th | |
| 7 August. While we were able to discuss these briefly at the meeting on | |
| 8 2nd September our trustees understandably wanted more time to consider | |
| 9 them before making substantive decisions. We have a further meeting | |
| 10 planned for 8th October, and if you were able to answer the following | |
| 11 questions before then it would be appreciated. | |
| 12 The QS's estimate of £90k for the courtyard work is far higher than the | |
| 13 indicative £22,750 in the QR. Does it cover additional work which is | |
| 14 not in the QR figure? Assuming the higher figure is the more reliable | |
| 15 trustees may be inclined to focus on weatherproofing work around the | |
| 16 courtyard and be more selective about replacement of windows. Would | |
| 17 you have a view on which windows should be a priority (in addition to | |
| 18 those to the creche area which you flagged as urgent in the QR)? | |
| 19 Within the weatherproofing work would you be able to advise on what | |
| 20 proportion might reasonably be requested from the owners of the other | |
| 21 properties which would benefit? | |
| 22 | |
| 23 JR, 6 October: | |
| 24 | |
| 25 The budget cost prepared by Gus Simpson of Ralph Ogg & Partners | |
| 26 chartered quantity surveyors includes more extensive work than is | |
| 27 covered by the QFR and also won’t include inflation since the draft | |
| 28 report was issued. Also apologies for not making it clearer - this | |
| 29 cost also includes repairs and re-decoration of the neighbours | |
| 30 windows c. £9k. There is also a contingency sum of£11,740 which | |
| 31 isn’t included in the QFR budget cost and the budget costs don't | |
| 32 include a full allowance for preliminaries. I assume that the | |
| 33 adjoining proprietors will have a shared responsibility for the | |
| 34 repairs to the external fabric of the tenement. I assume that the | |
| 35 works would be carried out in a similar way to the external repairs | |
| 36 to the front elevation of Upper Bow undertaken in 2021 when the | |
| 37 condition of the windows was checked when safe full external access | |
| 38 was available, costs confirmed and repairs carried out once each | |
| 39 proprietor confirmed that they wanted to proceed. | |
| 40 | |
| 41 MW: | |
| 42 | |
| 43 We are interested in moving to improve the Bow Room, possibly as a | |
| 44 separate project which might attract funding and would rather not delay | |
| 45 that work by tying it in with the courtyard. How much synergy there | |
| 46 would be in practice between the two in terms of possible contractors | |
| 47 and access? We assume that work on the Bow Room would be carried out | |
| 48 from Upper Bow, whereas the scaffolding in the courtyard might be | |
| 49 approached (by agreement) from Riddle's Court. I had assumed that the | |
| 50 scaffolding would need to be taken through the common door to the flats | |
| 51 rather than down from the Lawnmarket/Riddle’s Court. Do you have | |
| 52 contact details of who needs to be asked if this is acceptable as it | |
| 53 may change the preliminary costs for the erection and removal of the | |
| 54 scaffolding? I am then happy to contact them. My assumption was that | |
| 55 the main contractors for the external fabric repairs could also manage | |
| 56 the internal works and it would be more efficient in terms of | |
| 57 contractors overheads to carry out the work at the same time. Please | |
| 58 let me know how you want to proceed. | |
| 59 | |
| 60 MW: | |
| 61 | |
| 62 Because of the possible uses of the Bow Room we feel that accessibility | |
| 63 from Upper Bow is more of an issue than access to the rest of the | |
| 64 meeting house. Would it be possible to cut a ramp into the floor | |
| 65 within the building to achieve level access to the existing pavement? | |
| 66 How would this work with an inward opening door? Rising hinges? | |
| 67 | |
| 68 JR: | |
| 69 | |
| 70 I think that the best solutions would either be to set the door back | |
| 71 and form a triangular ramp within the thickness of the external wall | |
| 72 or to discuss the possibility of altering the levels of the pavement | |
| 73 with the Council to form a level platt of Caithness stone outside | |
| 74 the entrance door which then slope downward to the south and west to | |
| 75 meet the existing pavement levels. I guess the cheapest option would | |
| 76 be to obtain and temporary triangular ramp which could be put in | |
| 77 place when needed. We designed a similar temporary ramp for a shop | |
| 78 on the South Bridge which was fixed to the side of the stall riser | |
| 79 and then folded down when needed. This is likely to require LBC | |
| 80 which would likely delay a start to the external repairs although we | |
| 81 could commit to applying for this before the end of October if you | |
| 82 want us to proceed. We would like to agree a finalised version of | |
| 83 the quinquennial report now, but the plans for the two flats should | |
| 84 be added in, page and section numbering checked (for example there | |
| 85 seems to be a gap in the summary between point (d) and point (g)), | |
| 86 and the estimate of costs may need to be adjusted in the light of | |
| 87 the QS assessment. I am finalising this at the moment with the | |
| 88 additional information to include the plans of the two flats and | |
| 89 their condition. |