THURROCK Council has declined to answer challenging questions about the knowledge and motive of one its most senior officers when presenting details of its application to build a pontoon extension at the London International Cruise terminal in Tilbury.

The council's planning committee voted unanimously to support the application for the pontoon, which is expected to cost in the region of £7 million, with several quoting reasons detailed in the presentation by the council's Head of Regeneration, George McCullough.

He was invited to speak to members after details of the application were presented by senior planning officer Jonathan Keen.

Mr McCullough told members that the pontoon was the only way the terminal would be able to sustain visiting cruise ships, while at the same time accommodating UberBoat Thames Clippers – who are currently considering launching a regular service to and from London from Tilbury and Gravesend.

He added that it was also essential to the potential return of the currently discontinued Tilbury ferry.

Members were clearly influenced by his presentation, and his comments, and the UberBoats were mentioned by some councillors when they outlined why they would be supporting the application.

But the reality is that UberBoats, the ferry and cruise ships have been living in harmony on the existing pontoon jetty for years.

The presentation from senior officer George McCullough has been challenged by the chairman of Tilbury Forum

That was unearthed by a rudimentary investigation by Thurrock Nub News in the wake of last Tuesday's meeting (14 October), which coincided with immediate concerns raised by the chairman of Tilbury Forum, Craig Austin.

Thurrock Nub News reported on a detailed video presentation Mr Austin posted on social media at the weekend, which challenged the application and how the council went about its business.

In a question to the council, posed on Wednesday, 15 October, Nub News highlighted past events, including promotional material put out by the Port of Tilbury surrounding a showcase visit to the terminal for the naming celebration of Virgin Cruises' Valiant Lady – the largest ship to dock there.

The visit was run in tandem with trips to London by the clipper ferries, with the Jetstream Tilbury to Gravesend ferry docking at the jetty at the same time.

It was irrefutable proof that the statements by Mr McCullough and the council proposition that the new pontoon was essential were not based in fact – and the new pontoon is not required to ensure future use of the terminal by all three types of craft.

We asked Thurrock Council:-

"Can the council explain why it was not fair and balanced in making a presentation about its own application? There was no mention of the fact that the extension is not critical to the introduction of the pontoon - nor of the future restoration of a ferry service.

"Members were fed - and swallowed - a complete red herring.

"Statements made by the council's senior regeneration officer to Tuesday's planning committee - and those of Jonathan Keen - appear disingenuous at best and significantly untruthful and biased at worst. Why did Mr Keen's report - and the comments of Mr McCullough - make no mention of historic and concurrent operations at the Tilbury London International Cruise terminal which entirely negate the suggestion that a jetty extension (pontoon) is 'essential'."

Today (Wednesday, 22 October), Thurock Council finally responded to our question, dodging the vital points we raised.

Its statement, in full, was:

"The Planning Committee makes its decisions on individual planning applications strictly on their planning merits, regardless of the applicant. In this case, the applicant was the Council itself, and as is standard practice, the Head of Service responsible for the scheme provided a statement in support of the application. As with all planning applications heard at committee, there was a public right to register to speak.

"The Committee members were given the opportunity to ask questions of both the presenting officer and the case officer to determine the relevant planning considerations.

"There are differing views on the operational necessity of the pontoon extension. However, the Planning Committee's decision was not based on these operational issues but on the planning merits of the proposal as presented and discussed during the meeting."

Nub News editor Neil Speight said: "I found the brevity of the answer on such a serious topic quite breathtaking. The council had a week to consider its position, its integrity and the lack of honesty and fairness in the presentation to councillors.

"Make no bones about it, Mr McCullough cherry-picked items that suited somebody and completely ignored reality and historic activity at the terminal.

"There shouldn't be any problem in the council having an opinion and wanting to support the pontoon if it choses to do so – though heaven alone knows where that matter was debated and discussed – but there is a fundamental obligation of truth for officers to present all aspects of any planning application.

"And when it is considering its own application, it should be doubly careful to present ALL the facts, pro or con to its preferred option.

"Mr Keen and Mr McCullogh did not do that in the opinion not just of Nub News, but of respected community figures like Mr Austin and members of the Tilbury Forum.

"In recent months there have been some strange actions involving Thurrock planning.

"It's only a couple of weeks since the portfolio holder for 'good growth' Cllr Lee Westwood damned the developers of a commercial site in the north of the borough, describing their work as a 'blight' and promising residents they would turn the unauthorised site back to 'green and pleasant land'.

"Days later the council turned turtle and said it was OK for the site to continue and they would not be enforcing the 'clear off' order!

"There are many other instances of concern. I highlighted many of them in a news story and comment article as far back as February 2024 which fiercely condemned the council.

"We were promised a deep dive investigation into all matters surrounding planning by the council's top man, Managing Director Commissioner Dr Dave Smith. Sadly, his begrudging examination was weak, shallow and his prescription was 'carry on doing what you are doing'.

"Now we have senior officers shamelessly not telling the truth to councillors and the public and then defending their actions.

"There really does appear to be no shame too big that the council won't hide – and of course we are stilling waiting to know who sold us all down the river and why as the council was sunk and capsized by the fraudulent, unscrupulous and downright dishonest behaviour of its top officers and councillors.

"Little, it seems, has changed in this most rotten of boroughs."