I ENTIRELY agree with Councillor Peter Donkin's encouragement to your readers to 'look closely' at the town council's decision to bring its office building in Drake Road up to the standards of safety and access for disabled people required in the 21st century (Letters September 27).

I hope they will look first at his inaccurate assertion that the cost will be £200,000; the actual budget is £60,000 in each of the next two years to modernise the building for access and safety and a further precautionary £60.000 in a third year for refurbishment.

Second, they should look at the likely cost — to say nothing of the practicality — of the alternatives that have been kicked around by Cllr Donkin and his allies since April 2000. We wasted a lot of time and money having a scheme designed for Court Gate. That proved not only to be hugely expensive, but also, as some of us who have been there before had said, was vetoed out of hand by English Heritage because the building is an ancient monument.

As to the town hall, it looks good on paper . . . until you realise, as those of us who have actually used various parts of it for meetings realise, that it is totally impractical and that to create the required office space to accompany it would be at least as expensive as converting the Drake Road building.

The old library site was ruled out because it is needed as part of a larger scheme to revitalise the pannier market area. It may well have been feasible to use it, but the overall cost of newbuild accommodation there would have been comparable with that of grasping the nettle at Drake Road, particularly when the immediate loss of current revenue was factored in, and the lost opportunity of the larger scheme would cost taxpayers dear in the medium to long-term.

What annoys me is that, having thrashed all of these issues out in great detail over three months in a committee (Cllr Donkin sitting) which twice came up with the same recommendation, Cllr Donkin is still putting about inflated figures but providing no new evidence to refute that majority view of council.

R W Mathew

Town Councillor

Willowby

Down Road

Tavistock

KIDOLOGY is the fashionable thing apparently. Safeway imply that they have improved retailing in the town centre and now a town councillor would have us believe that it would be cheaper for the council to move from their purpose-built premises than to provide necessary disabled access and fire escape.

He does not say what the cost of relocating the museum and registrar's offices would be nor does he mention the inconvenience and cost to the tenants in the basement. What are his expectations on the sale or lease of the building? And what would the borough council charge for the use of their property? He avoids those imponderables.

Would it not be cheaper to move the council's works department from the West Bridge Industrial Estate where, no doubt, a commercial rent is paid, to the old library which would be rent free? Does the council want its chamber in such a nondescript building? Does it need a chamber, he asks. Just as much as he needs trousers, each would lose dignity if deprived of them.

On the use of the town hall he is equally vague. Where would the offices be located? What disabled access and fire escape would be provided for the Rundle Room and at what cost? The room is at the top of a steep staircase and not above the hall as he states, but above the refreshments room which has a licensed bar. Does he think proximity to the bar would improve council debate?

G Kirkpatrick

Parkwood Road

Tavistock