FIRE protection in properties owned by Tavistock Town Council is not good enough, according to a chartered surveyor involved in assessment of the buildings.
David Scott has written to the council stating that more action is required to bring the town hall, Duke Street properties and Court Gate up to scratch and said fire protection work should be given 'priority A' status.
He said fire protection upgrades were 'not satisfactory' and although not a statutory requirement, protection should be 'as comprehensive as possible'.
He suggested a range of works including protection from basement to ground floor levels and fire escape routes from residential stairs.
Mr Scott also felt water protection should be looked at again.
He said: 'Whilst it is accepted that at present we are not getting major problems internally, I believe that slowly we will and that, in a short space of time, we will end up having a major problem on our hands.
'It is surely a priority to ensure that water is kept out of the building and risk of further deterioration reduced.'
Mr Scott suggested councillors should consider a means of stopping water getting into basements in Duke Street, plus a range of high level leadwork replacements and attention to roofs.
Roger Howard, Tavistock's town clerk, said Mr Scott was the council's expert witness during the recent arbitration case concerning renovations to its properties several years ago.
'He knows these buildings backwards. We said to him, "Now give us your view on what is wrong and what we have to do to put it all right",' said Col Howard.
He said councillors realised they had a 'duty of care' to maintain public buildings adequately.
'They want to minimise the precept but on the other hand, they have £8-million worth of properties which have not been maintained properly.'
Col Howard said that at this stage he had no idea what the suggested repair works would cost.
At last week's meeting of the council's properties committee, Cllr Jenny Metcalfe said some things needed doing 'very urgently'.
'We have patched up endless times and its causing a lot of problems,' she said.
Cllr Judith Williams suggested there was often a 'difference of opinion' on 'what is needed, what is acceptable and what is legal'.
She said: 'I accept what Mr Scott is saying, but I think we should at least have information from the local specialists and get the fire officer to look at the properties first, before we make any decision on what is needed.'
Members agreed to set up a working group to meet the fire officer, Mr Scott and the works superintendent and report back to the properties committee.