I AM pleased to read (Letters, September 20) that at least one member of the public shares the concerns of almost half the Tavistock Town councillors about the decision to spend over £200,000 refurbishing our Drake Road offices. The costs are equivalent to more than £20 for each person on the electoral register of Tavistock for a facility that very few will ever use directly.
Though a parish poll on the issue may not be well supported at this time of major international crisis, a debate in this letter column would be most informative. Perhaps concerned Tavistock taxpayers should visit the buildings that the council have considered.
The major objective of the Drake Road expenditure is to provide disabled access and a fire escape for our two offices and debating chamber on the first floor. If the museum were to be found a better home, our offices could be moved downstairs, so only the debating chamber would need costly access provision. Do we need a chamber?
Visit the town hall, a little used building on Tuesday evening when we have our full council meetings. Is the main hall too big, too drafty, and with too much echo for our meetings? Visit the Rundle Room above the main hall. It seats 50 people. Too small for our 16 town councillors and a few visiting members of the public?
Look at the old library site. If our offices were there would it destroy the commercial viability of the pannier market area? Would you find it unacceptable if the town council were to choose the very cost-effective solution of occupying office space in the borough building at Kilworthy Park?
It's your £20+ the town council is spending. Has it made the right decision?
Cllr Peter Donkin
9 Chestnut Close
Bishopsmead