In the meantime I feel the need to resurrect "A heated debate". When I made that post I was unaware that there had been a second CLG meeting, which took place on the 1st July. Eric Reynolds and John Burton missed the meeting, so the hapless Chris Smith was left to restate the dodgy company line. Here's an extract from the minutes:
It was stated that a heating solution for the temporary market was essential. It was commented that heating the tented structure would breach building regulations, would be environmentally unfriendly and would be costly. The current market was not heated and it was thought that the retail units proposed to surround the market tent would provide a barrier to the elements.Again I ask (and I'm afraid I'll have to shout this time): What building regulations would heating the tent breach?
I know tent heating isn't the most critical issue facing the market, but USM's response to enquiries on the matter gives an indication of why many are deeply uneasy about them having any involvement in the market's future.
3 comments:
I think the point you make at the end Whistler is the most important one. It is the responses we get to our questions that concern me. To one person it's this, to another it's that. It's just never the same. This is why we never seem to know where we stand. This is why there is so much confusion over things like the grading system. The other way they respond of course is just simply not to answer us at all. Thank god we've got our own rep going to these meetings keeping us informed. Otherwise we would know absolutely nothing.
Whistler could we possibly have a section regarding the electrics on the Market. If I remember rightly it was a trader who wired us all up in exchange for free rent, unfortunately this trader was not qualified in electrics in any way. I thought that all major electrical work in business premises had to be carried out by a registered Part B electrician?
What you say is quite true, so it'll be a pleasure. I'll get to it as soon as possible.
Post a Comment