TOPIC:

Obviously I take exception to the glib remark that the bands aren't as popular as they used to be, I wonder what you base that on, etc. But it's hard to argue against anecdotes.
I thought we'd covered the other points already: the PA bits can move as the band doesn't actually need to be mixed from there any more (and it's not a good point to mix from anyway). The new pillar will have a shelf for pints. The pub won't be closed while the work is being done. Yes we have done fire risk assessment (FFS...) and the electrics are safe and certified to be so. I don't think it's about "a business case", I've said this before. I think the experience of the pub would be enhanced not reduced with a smaller pillar.

I would be surprised if the portion of wall under discussion is younger than the rest of the back wall. Memory is no longer my strong point and I would be very happy to be refuted, but I'm fairly sure I can remember the snug being a separate room, with a doorway (the gap nearest the bar) leading into it. In Brad's day the jazz bands used to set up in the bar directly in front of what is now the second gap (furthest from the bar) which I think was created maybe 30 or 40 years ago, maybe around the time the South wall (between the bar and the old barn next door) was removed to provide the current big seating space up the steps.

Regarding the business case question, as an investor I am a little uneasy about the notion of capital expenditure justified by subjective assessment of people's enjoyment, rather than by expected financial return from the expenditure. I could say I would enjoy using the snug more if that second gap could be filled in again, but obviously I won't!

" Yes we have done fire risk assessment (FFS...)" Does that expression means Fire Finds Steve?

If the fire risk assessment has been done it certainly hasn't been acted on. Take a quick glance at the fire door at the bottom of the stairs and you will see that somebody has removed the door stop to feed some wires through to the bar. Tell me how this meets fire safety regulations which ask for a 1 hour separation for fire and smoke between a place of assembly and residential use.

Maybe this link will help www.gov.uk/workplace-fire-safety-your-re...s/who-is-responsible

Steve,

I know you've put more thought and effort into this subject than many of us, and your views on it are to be respected, but John_Anderson is right: the only argument you're advancing is your personal opinion: "I think the experience of the pub would be enhanced not reduced with a smaller pillar."

As you say, it is hard to argue with anecdotes. It's also hard to argue with personal opinions.

You're the second Board member to post on this today and the outreach is very welcome. Clarebka1 says that "The view is that by removing the pillar it will provide better viewing of the bands." Again, this is hard to argue with. Of course it would open up longer sight-lines. I don't think anyone doubts that.

Both of the Board postings look at what is to be gained. Fair enough. But if you read over this forum, and if you're seeking to sway opinion ahead of the meeting, you'll see that what is really bothering people is what is to be lost. I'm thinking here of the snug area as much as the structure itself.

I'm very glad to hear effort's being made to date the thing, and I look forward to hearing the results.

If Towaho's comments regarding the fire door are correct I am, as a share holder, very concerned and would like to hear from the board about this ASAP! I would also know who signed this off.

On the pillar I lean towards its removal being a positive thing but my concern is that unless we find away to get more beer over the bar this wouldn't be good business. My thinking is that from what I've seen when the pub is full enough for the pillar to be an issue the bar staff seem to be flat out. Is there an opportunity for us to have a basic set of drinks on the flat stainless steel section of the bar to make this more financially beneficial.

A view from my partner is that she doesn't come to the Bell very often because she finds it quite claustrophobic and would go more often if the place felt more open and this would help.

A view from my dad is that he thinks a cheaper alternative (he has some experience with building work) with most of the benefits is that you could cut the pillar half way up, put a steel pillar on the top half with a nice wood top on the pillar. The removal of the top of the pillar would provide much better viewing, the wood top on the original bit would offer more space for glasses and the snug would remain mostly in its current form.

The fact that John Bradshaw had the entire span of the original South wall removed in the 1970s (when planning was a lot laxer than it is now) to virtually double the space of the bar area is - to my mind - a good reason to leave the bit of wall which forms the pillar as it is, but that is just an opinion, of course.

You would have thought that Bradshaw - the instigator of live music at The Bell - would have taken out the 'pillar' at the same time if he thought it would enhance the experience of the jazz audience, wouldn't you? It used to get very busy in those days too.

I think we have to come to terms with the fact that the management and Board is dominated by people whose first interest is music. There has to be a balance between the live music events and the spirit of the pub as a traditional boozer, and - up until now - I thought that balance had been achieved. Of course there must be change, but why go for irreversible change only two years into public ownership? Could it be to do with people wishing to make their mark while they still can?