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.