Your say…

Letters may be edited for space, offensive language or defamatory reasons.

Dear Editor
Regarding the Report from Savills, dissected by Mike Deignan in the last issue re Council’s master plan to buy the Masters site…  I make three points that do not change, no matter what Savills have said in their report:

1.   If a consolidated site is the best option, why didn’t Savills explore all the available combinations; 2 campus and their locations etc. ?

  1. If a single consolidated location was shown to be the best and most efficient CTP option, who decided (and on what basis) that Taree was the location, or was just the ‘whimsical’ choice because the Masters building came up?

3.  If, by ‘happenstance’, Taree turned out to be the best location, because no one has studied where the best location or locations are, has anyone costed whether it is good business to do it on the Masters site? I had a leading Australian architect cost the type and size of building needed, with future expansion, and a 250 vehicle car park, and it came in $10/$15 million cheaper than the Masters option.


Bill Richardson  



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.