PICTURES have been released by whistle-blowers that show the inside of Thurrock Council's new council chamber and the images clearly show that an official council statement, refuting a Nub News story about significant mistakes in design and build, is a misrepresentation of the truth.

(Editor's note): "Sorry, for that, I dropped into council jargon – it means the council has lied to the public!"

Last week Nub News exclusively reported on the fact that the council chamber, which is part of a building project that has cost millions of pounds, contains far less seats for councillors than the number of elected members.

The chamber had been opened for inspection by senior councillors and invited guests who were asked to view the project prior to its opening to the public. An open meeting of the cabinet, to which the public could attend, took place later that day (Wednesday, 30 March) in an adjoining room. There was no suggestion that by attending that meeting in the new building anyone was putting themselves under any safety risk.

It now appears the chamber, and possibly other rooms also criticised as not fit for purpose – including the new mayor's parlour - will require a reconfiguration and possibly a rebuild. It is suggested a wall may have to be removed to make the chamber able to effectively accommodate all 49 elected members and at least the half dozen officers who also have to attend meetings.

The pictures clearly put the size of the new chamber into context, it appears smaller in terms of floorspace than the previous chamber – even though one of the reasons given for its creation was to have a larger public space.

Two images from the design brief showing significantly more places for members.

That is particularly relevant as new government legislation expected to be introduced soon will increase the number of local councillors per ward – meaning Thurrock might soon have up to 60 councillors. Given the new building was created from scratch, it appears there has been no effort put into future-proofing it.

In the immediate wake of our story, the council closed down access to the chamber, contacted all councillors and told them they could not enter it for safety reasons and then – several days after publication of our article - issued a 'statement to clarify misinformation about Thurrock Council's new Civic Offices building.'

In particular – and most damningly, that statement said: "The main council chamber has been designed, and is being built, to provide seating for all 49 elected members, plus officers and a public gallery. It is being equipped with the latest technology including viewing screens for members and the public gallery and a camera system to allow meetings to be webcast.

"Testing and snagging is currently taking place as fixtures, fittings and furnishings are being finalised. There is no reconfiguration of the structure, or walls being removed."

The pictures we have been supplied show visitors being walked around the chamber. Council Chief Executive Lyn Carpenter is one of the officers showing guests and councillors the new facility. The seats are set out on desks with single place settings including panels to separate floor space. There are 22 places in total in two rows of two arcs and 14 additional places on a central array where the mayor sits.

The actual image is similar in shape to artist's impressions of the chamber produced before the build which show the two arcs to contain more than 40 seats. But does not contain the same number of places.

We have chosen to produce one image of several supplied to us from two sources, which has been digitally amended to remove some of the people shown in it. This is to protect the identity of the people who took pictures. They are known to us and one is a high-ranking member of the council's establishment but we were asked to do everything to protect the identify for fear of retribution for exposing the council's duplicity.

As has been reported with previous whistleblowing incidents, many staff within the civic offices live and work within a culture of fear.

Our story also quoted opposition leader Cllr John Kent who expressed continued concern about the lack of honesty and openness about the cost of the building. Speculation from observers of the project since it began in 2018 have warned that the eventual cost could top £20 million - even as much, said Cllr Kent, as £26 million in real terms.

The statement from the council also refuted this.

It said: "The new Civic Office building is not yet complete and the building has not yet opened. The building work is expected to come in on budget at £9.8m. Reports that estimate that the cost of the building work is £26m are entirely incorrect."

The council was disingenuous in that statement. Our report did not say 'building works' it said 'the building' taking the whole project into account.

In 2018 a financial appraisal of the pending project estimated the construction works of the new office alone would be £9.8million. Despite inflation that is the figure that appears to have stuck in the council's mind's eye four years later.

What the £9.8 million did not include is the initial cost of building the land on which the new offices stand, the cost of demolition, the compensation paid to businesses that were displaced and the deign and project costs associated with the project before a brick was laid.

The £9.8m figure does not take into account costs associated with the building of the new extension and the 'legacy' that it has to leave in the vacated space which is to be demolished.

The council plans to build, now at its own expense, social housing including at least 80 homes.

When the concept of a new civic extension was first mooted, Cllr Mark Coxshall, the Conservative portfolio holder for regeneration, assured residents there would be no impact on the council finances as the commercial development of the vacated space would cover all the costs.

Unfortunately for the council, the commercial development world was not interested in the building and no commercial partner could be found because the concept was not financially viable.

Therefore both projects, known as CO1 (the old offices) and CO3 (the new offices and chamber) are intrinsically and deeply linked and costs for both significantly overlap.

To suggest that the total cost of the new civic offices project from start to finish is £9.8million is, experts have agreed with Nub News, impossible to fathom.

Because the council's policy of secrecy and a persistent refusal to answer questions on the cost overruns of many of its major infrastructure projects (which include the £40 million over budget A13 works and the botched Stanford rail station project now running £20 million over initial estimates), no-one outside the inner sanctum of the current administration knows the real costs.

COMMENT - by Neil Speight, Nub News editor.

'Reap what you sow' is a cliché that applies to Thurrock Council's administration.

I make no apology at all for today calling the senior administration, which must by default include at its helm CEO Lyn Carpenter and council leader Cllr Rob Gledhill, as unfit for office.

All politicians – and a lot of civil servants – frequently bend the truth. Sadly, honesty and politics are rare bedfellows – we have seen that right from the pinnacle of British politics.

The insidious policy of dishonesty and contempt for democracy and the ordinary people is now embedded in many layers of public life. Within the walls of Thurrock Council it is a way of life!

This administration has refused to answer legitimate questions from the media, in particular saying it will not answer any questions from Nub News.

In order to try and ascertain the cost of the Civic Offices project Nub News has resorted to the Freedom of Information act to try and find answers to the following questions:

1. Total spent on design fees and consultancy.

2. Legal fees.

3. Land acquisition costs and business compensation.

4. Full demolition and construction costs, including internal fixtures and fittings.

5. Overall total project cost including the above and any other related charges.

If and when we get it we will share it.

That information should be readily to hand. It should be in the public domain. It should not prompt the need for media and the general public to try and force the council's hand into giving up its secrets. This is our money! But sadly in Thurrock that is what happens.

Thurrock Council is supposed to serve Thurrock residents. To care for and effectively manage the massive amounts of money it is paid by borough residents to act on the community's behalf.

That is the community of Thurrock – not huge conglomerate construction and design companies, not consultant pals of senior officers who broker deals, not officers living in leafy rural suburbs in Kent and Sussex and not weak and self-serving councillors who suck up to the leadership to gain lucrative posts and supplement their incomes by up to £11,00 a year!

And Thurrock Council is supposed to be able to do its job properly. Not manage cock up after cock-up. One mistake is understandable, two is forgivable but three is a travesty.

Thurrock residents have been fobbed off with excuses and lies about the A13 project, the Stanford rail station project and now the civic office extension!

Enough is enough. We are fed up with exposing the lies and we demand accountability on behalf of borough residents. We call on any of those 49 councillors with any integrity to stand up and be counted and demand an enquiry into the maladministration of this authority.

The same massage goes to our two MPs. Jackie Doyle-Price and Stephen Metcalfe have been remarkably quiet while all this happens on their doorstep.

And we call on the government to launch its own or authorise a police probe into the malfeasance of senior officers, not just with regard to these infrastructure projects but the whereabouts and security of the hundreds of millions the council has invested, building up a debt mountain of more than one billion pounds.

That all may seem a huge ask on the back of publishing one picture from inside a building. But as often happens, it is the little things that have the biggest impact.

We hope this clear attempt at deception by the council turns out to be the straw that breaks its back!