REFERENCE last week?s Okehampton Times, with the headline ?Architect?s fees topped £35,000 in 20 months?. I consider that your headline disregards the facts as follows: Firstly, you point out that the councillors have adopted a sterner attitude towards analysing the money the council spends. My response to this is that my practice was taken on on a competitive basis against other architects. Also, all of my work has been the subject of a contract that the council has entered into, and they have adopted the procedure for analysing fees spent as required by their standing orders. Secondly, Cllr Marsh states that she is ?amazed at the size of the figure and we haven?t got a lot to show for it?. A lot of work has been carried out; if anyone wishes to look at the reality of the situation they would be able to see this for themselves. Cllr Leech states the reason for the work is ?because there is a backlog of work going back around 20 years?. The harsh reality of the situation is that the council has for the last 25 years or so, spent minimally on maintenance of their buildings, presumably to minimise the precept. However, this has now left a legacy of serious maintenance matters which have to be dealt with urgently, such as dry rot and cracking lead guttering. Finally, my personal opinion is that for a leading councillor to state that she is amazed at the level of expenditure, appears to obscure the amazing fact that so little maintenance work has been carried out in the period of her tenure as mayor and councillor. If the £35,000 of fees had been spent over the 25-year period on maintenance, it is likely that there would be no expenditure on fees at this stage nor on the maintenance contract worth £125,000 to be carried out this autumn which is purely to put these maintenance matters right. It is clear to me that your headline should have read: ?Architect?s fees topped £35,000 in 20 months to solve town council?s serious backlog of repairs and maintenance works?. Nils Westman Chartered architect
