MYSTERY surrounds the background to a security-driven £24,000 project in Thurrock's Town Hall which has cut the capacity of the public gallery in the council chamber and seen the creation of a large, reinforced glass wall, isolating councillors from the onlookers, including the media.

Councillors, including the authority's leader Cllr John Kent, say they knew nothing about the wall's construction and that the project by the cash-strapped council was driven by officers without appropriate scrutiny.

It was erected by a Welsh firm towards the end of the council's August recess, when only a handful of meetings take place. It was first unveiled publicly at the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday, 3 September, when committee chair Cllr Neil Speight expressed his surprise and concern about its construction and how it might affect visitors' ability to hear what was going on in a room already noted for its poor acoustics, while committee member Cllr Tony Fish, who uses a wheelchair, raised his concerns about accessibility and safety.

The new double-thickness glass wall, which divides the councillors from the public and the media, is more than six foot high. It replaces a former waist-high barrier. To create the new barrier, 12 seats have been removed from the public gallery.

Questions from Nub News to the council took some time to answer, including a request for an audit trail about how the decision was reached (ie where it was discussed and who voted for it - and when?) but the following statement has now been issued: "The security improvements to the chamber were developed in response to national and local concerns about the safety of members.

"The plans have taken some time to be implemented as the decision was taken some months ago. The leader of the council at the time, Cllr Andrew Jefferies and the leader of the opposition at the time, Cllr John Kent were briefed on the plans. 

"The decision was taken in accordance with our internal expenditure control process and was subject to several points of officer approval in line with our internal controls. The overall cost of the project was £24,000. 

"We will of course look closely at any concerns and issues around accessibility and address them as soon as possible. Accessibility was and remains a key requirement of the implementation of the plans.

"Our Health and Safety team have ensured that the works are compliant with the regulations including the Disability Discrimination Act."

A further statement from the council says: "The cost of the work within the council chamber was £24,089, this was charged to the capital programme.

"The work was necessary to alleviate fears brought to us by members for their safety while in the chamber. The works will see the barrier between the gallery and chamber (currently 1.1m high) become 1.9m high

However, Cllr Kent, who is now leader of the council, disputes the veracity of the statement, saying he has not been fully briefed and that the only time he had any discussion on the idea of changing security was a discussion with then Director of Place, Mark Bradbury.

"Members had asked about the possibility of a second exit from the chamber whereby they could retire or enter without interacting with the public. On occasions members need to step outside the chamber for ancillary meetings or briefings and in the previous chamber there was secondary door that led to meeting rooms.

"I had nothing more than a cursory discussion about that with Mr Bradbury.

"Seeing the glass wall put in place was a complete surprise to me and I have not been engaged in discussions or briefed. I can't speak for Cllr Jefferies, but this has not been done with my approval."

Another chair of a scrutiny committee, Cllr Gary Byrne, whose responsibility includes scrutiny of decisions about council decision, says he is 'extremely concerned' about how a decision by the effectively bankrupt council to spend such a large sum on an unwanted and unnecessary project could happen.

And he disputes that the issue was raised by councillors, saying: "I have spoken to many members about this and not one of those I have spoken to says they were aware of it or had raised concerns.

"I have served on the council for a long time. I have never been in a position where I felt threatened by a member of the public, in the old chamber or this new one.

"From time to time you get a bit of verbal from the gallery but a member of the public crossing the boundary is unheard of – and we always have security available.

Cllr Gary Byrne spoke to an angry member of the public who stepped up to the former waist-high barrier to deliver a verbal tirade. With security present the situation was quickly defused.

"I can recall one instance last year when a gentleman got very irate, but I spoke to him and in the end he left the chamber. You have to manage these situations but putting up a wall isn't the way to go about it."

Cllr Byrne is also concerned about why the contract was awarded to a firm from Monmouthshire, saying: "Did this work go out to tender? Why was there a need to bring in a business based in Wales? It shows no respect for Thurrock businesses and also proves Thurrock's senior management care not about our carbon footprint at 0.33 per kilo in gas emissions for the manufacture of glass, plus a 400 mile round trip for transportation."

And he pointed out that officers appear to have had double standards in reaching the decision. "There have been a number of complaints about security in the car park under the building, which is now frequently left open, allowing anyone access.

"We have members of staff and councillors going down there in the dark and I know there have been incidents of unauthorised people being found there.

"Recently a member of a committee was accosted by four masked youths as she left the building. Fortunately, nothing overly toward happened but it could have. The £24,000 spent on this unnecessary glass monstrosity which attacks the dignity of the council and democracy could have been much better spent on having better security or a guard in an place where people really are at risk.

"We are constantly apologising and telling members we can't carry out services for them which they see as vital, yet officers can come together and come up with a scheme like this.

"We are told we are supposed to be in a new era of openness, honesty and transparency. The only transparency about this is the glass people now must look through to see councillors at work. It's a waste of time, which could be put to better use, and money – which we were told we haven't got."