--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/MHMC/2025-10-20/ward_renshaw.txt	Mon Oct 20 11:49:38 2025 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+Correspondance between Martin Ward (MW), Clerk to AM Trustees and John
+Renshaw (JR), contracted to carry out the Quinquennial Review.
+
+MW, 23 September:
+
+  Thank you for all of the documents which you sent through on 29th
+  August.   While we were able to discuss these briefly at the meeting on
+  2nd September our trustees understandably wanted more time to consider
+  them  before making substantive decisions.  We have a further meeting
+  planned for 8th October, and if you were able to answer the following
+  questions before then it would be appreciated.
+  The QS's estimate of £90k for the courtyard work is far higher than the
+  indicative £22,750 in the QR.   Does it cover additional work which is
+  not in the QR figure?  Assuming the higher figure is the more reliable
+  trustees may be inclined to focus on weatherproofing work around the
+  courtyard and be more selective about replacement of windows.   Would
+  you have a view on which windows should be a priority (in addition to
+  those to the creche area which you flagged as urgent in the QR)?
+  Within the weatherproofing work would you be able to advise on what
+  proportion might reasonably be requested from the owners of the other
+  properties which would benefit?
+
+JR, 6 October:
+
+  The budget cost prepared by Gus Simpson of Ralph Ogg & Partners
+  chartered quantity surveyors includes more extensive work than is
+  covered by the QFR and also won’t include inflation since the draft
+  report was issued. Also apologies for not making it clearer - this
+  cost also includes repairs and re-decoration of the neighbours
+  windows c. £9k. There is also a contingency sum of£11,740 which
+  isn’t included in the QFR budget cost and the budget costs don't
+  include a full allowance for preliminaries.  I assume that the
+  adjoining proprietors will have a shared responsibility for the
+  repairs to the external fabric of the tenement. I assume that the
+  works would be carried out in a similar way to the external repairs
+  to the front elevation of Upper Bow undertaken in 2021 when the
+  condition of the windows was checked when safe full external access
+  was available, costs confirmed and repairs carried out once each
+  proprietor confirmed that they wanted to proceed.
+
+MW:
+
+  We are interested in moving to improve the Bow Room, possibly as a
+  separate project which might attract funding and would rather not delay
+  that work by tying it in with the courtyard.  How much synergy there
+  would be in practice between the two in terms of possible contractors
+  and access?   We assume that work on the Bow Room would be carried out
+  from Upper Bow, whereas the scaffolding in the courtyard might be
+  approached (by agreement) from Riddle's Court. I had assumed that the
+  scaffolding would need to be taken through the common door to the flats
+  rather than down from the Lawnmarket/Riddle’s Court. Do you have
+  contact details of who needs to be asked if this is acceptable as it
+  may change the preliminary costs for the erection and removal of the
+  scaffolding? I am then happy to contact them. My assumption was that
+  the main contractors for the external fabric repairs could also manage
+  the internal works and it would be more efficient in terms of
+  contractors overheads to carry out the work at the same time. Please
+  let me know how you want to proceed.
+
+MW: 
+
+  Because of the possible uses of the Bow Room we feel that accessibility
+  from Upper Bow is more of an issue than access to the rest of the
+  meeting house.   Would it be possible to cut a ramp into the floor
+  within the building to achieve level access to the existing pavement?
+  How would this work with an inward opening door?  Rising hinges?
+
+JR:
+
+  I think that the best solutions would either be to set the door back
+  and form a triangular ramp within the thickness of the external wall
+  or to discuss the possibility of altering the levels of the pavement
+  with the Council to form a level platt of Caithness stone outside
+  the entrance door which then slope downward to the south and west to
+  meet the existing pavement levels. I guess the cheapest option would
+  be to obtain and temporary triangular ramp which could be put in
+  place when needed. We designed a similar temporary ramp for a shop
+  on the South Bridge which was fixed to the side of the stall riser
+  and then folded down when needed. This is likely to require LBC
+  which would likely delay a start to the external repairs although we
+  could commit to applying for this before the end of October if you
+  want us to proceed.  We would like to agree a finalised version of
+  the quinquennial report now, but the plans for the two flats should
+  be added in, page and section numbering checked (for example there
+  seems to be a gap in the summary between point (d) and point (g)),
+  and the estimate of costs may need to be adjusted in the light of
+  the QS assessment. I am finalising this at the moment with the
+  additional information to include the plans of the two flats and
+  their condition.