All the talk this month has centred on exhibitions. We started with news that Glassex has been confined to history. No surprise there for many in the industry, especially fabricators and installers, but nevertheless a huge disappointment to component suppliers and machinery providers. How can a £4 billion industry not have its own exhibition? The good news however, is that the industry is spoilt for choice regarding alternative promotional channels. I also believe that fabricators and installers are currently focusing on ensuring their businesses successfully survive the lingering effects of the recession. A day out at an exhibition is probably not top of their priorities, and in order to keep up with product and market developments, a read of the trade press, a search on the internet or a visit from a supplier rep will cover all bases. For those who could spare the time, the recent Ecobuild exhibition offered an alternative to Glassex and a chance to embrace the wider construction market. With more than 50,000 visitors attending the three-day event, the construction sector obviously still has an appetite for an exhibition. The window industry was well represented and those who made the trip to London reported a worthwhile experience, although there were probably more finished products for installers to see rather than fabricators searching for components. The Glassex organisers haven't completely ruled out a possible return for a glazing-related show; they claim to be focused on researching possibilities for a new event for 2012.

Away from the bubble of exhibitions, stories in the national press about the glazing industry continue to amaze. The Daily Mail reported that a pensioner is in danger of being fined £20,000 by his local council for installing the wrong type of white front door. The door in question was in a cottage within a conservation area, but this wasn't a case of a PVC-U or GRP product replacing an old timber door - a situation that would no doubt have been approved. The replacement timber door featured a small glazed window that the council claimed had a 'significant adverse effect'. The pensioner-homeowner wanted the window for his own safety so he could see callers at the house. This case just demonstrates some of the challenges faced when trying to improve a property. Councils need to be more sympathetic when homeowner-safety is a key concern, especially when the replacement enhances security and aesthetics.

John Cowie - Editor