I WOULD like to try to explain the rationale behind Tavistock Town Council's strategy to make more cost-effective use of our buildings ( Letters, May 17).
1. Saving of £250,000. This is the estimated cost of bringing our Drake Road offices up to the current fire safety and disabled access standards required of a public building. If we relinquish our use of the building we will not need to spend this money. What costs any future owner of the building would incur will depend upon the uses to which it is put.
2. Refurbishment of Court Gate. Court Gate is an old, but priceless part of the town's historical heritage which the town council must protect. It has proved difficult to let commercially, so use by the town council seems an excellent option. Hopefully, much of the cost of conversion to current access requirements will be met by income from the sale of the Drake Road building.
3. Our current tenants of these buildings. I, and I'm sure my fellow councillors, are keen to help to find suitable alternative accommodation for our tenants as necessary. Some, I gather, would like to move.
4. Do we need a property manager? It is often helpful to have 'in-house' experts but there would be serious long-term cost issues for a small council like Tavistock. Longer-serving councillors than myself seem to have confidence in the quality and integrity of the advice offered by our external advisors. The council has encountered difficulty in the past with a major refurbishment programme, but a project of this scale and complexity is unlikely to be repeated in the near future.
The property moves described will only go ahead if our expert advisors indicate that they are viable.
Cllr Peter Donkin
9 Chestnut Close
Bishopsmead