Water supply for church, Inquiry likely at Rosebank and Licensing law shock
Water supply for church
From the Groat of January 16, 1925
A “spirited debate on the water question” had taken place at a meeting of Thurso Town Council following receipt of a letter from the session clerk of the Parish Church.
James Grant had requested that the council give a “definite reply to the request that the Kirk Session be permitted to revert to the use of water for the church organ”.
The council heard that the church was only allowed to use water to power the organ on a Sunday, prompting Councillor Macdonald to suggest that as the town had a “plentiful supply” the Kirk Session could be allowed water when they wanted.
However, Provost Anderson took the view that the council should prioritise its domestic users.
Mr Macdonald agreed that domestic users should come first but said it would be unfair to the Kirk Session not to consider the request.
The councillors heard that the church organ used two-and-a-half gallons of water per minute.
After much consideration the council agreed to deny the request.
At the same meeting, councillors heard that local traders were unhappy with the quality and high cost of gas lighting in the town. Thurso Merchants’ Association suggested that a better service might be provided if the council was to consider an electric lighting scheme.
Inquiry likely over Rosebank plan
From the Groat of January 17, 1975
With a week left for lodging objections to the demolition of Rosebank House in Wick, the listed building most recently used as the Henderson Memorial Hospital, a county council official had reported that as yet none had been received.
However, it was expected that a “fair number” would be “coming in”.
The Groat understood that an objection from the Scottish Civic Trust had already been, or soon would be, lodged directly with St Andrew’s House in Edinburgh.
At least two members of the Wick Society intended to lodge objections as private individuals and the society itself was due to hold a special meeting to decide whether to object as a body.
A local member of the Thomas Telford Society was also set to lodge a protest, as the building was the only bow-fronted house of its type left in Scotland to have been designed by Telford.
It was expected that a public inquiry into the demolition – to make way for a new hospital – was “almost bound to result because of these objections”.
At a meeting between county councillors and Highland Health Board representatives, county convener Alexander Rugg suggested that the suitability of the site be examined before the scheme went any further. However, he was told that a change of site would result in additional expense and a delay of up to 10 years.
Licensing law shock for organisers
From the Groat of January 21, 2000
A little-known licensing law which had been introduced in Caithness the previous year had made it a criminal offence for anyone to charge children to play on a bouncy castle or pensioners to have a tea dance unless the venue was licensed by Highland Council.
Similarly, anyone who charged a fee for a slideshow, a children’s disco, a lecture, a fun day, a Santa’s grotto or any other “entertainment or recreation” was committing a criminal offence if the premises did not have a public entertainment licence costing up to £180.
The new regulations had been in force for almost a year but it appeared public awareness had been minimal and no enforcement had been carried out.
The council’s area manager Brian Whitelaw conceded that a number of event organisers had probably been guilty of breaking the law. He said the council had no plans to seek their conviction, but officials had been asked to begin enforcement.
Niall Smith of Caithness Voluntary Group said the new rules were “another burden” on already cash-strapped venues such as village halls. He maintained that CVG had never been contacted by the council about the new rules so that the information could be passed on to its 128 member groups.