A COUNCILLOR has said that the public should be directly consulted on plans to refurbish the Whitehaven Town Council offices.

Edwin Dinsdale shared his thoughts on the plans which were discussed at a meeting of the council last week.

The meeting heard that architects are now seeking quotes to carry out the revamp to the Queen Street offices, which have been in the works for several years.

Cllr Dinsdale said: "Ultimately the money that is being used is residents' money and they should be consulted around how the money is spent.

"This amount of money is the equivalent of one year's finance for the town council being spent on one project.

"Despite the council currently having over £600,000 in credit, phase one of this refurbishment alone could potentially see the council finances going into the red.

"Costs for the overall plan have spiralled to an eye-watering £1.5 million pounds and the budget is clearly out of control.

"This refurbishment could end up putting the building into negative equity which would mean taxpayers' money is quite literally being poured down the drain.

"As the current ward councillor for the proposed project, I am very concerned and this is starting to look like a very expensive vanity project.

"I have personally tried to give the project every opportunity of succeeding.

"But without outside intervention, which would include third-party money in the form of grant support, the project in my opinion can not be justified.

"I believe it is time to let the residents know what is going on and allow the residents to have their say."

Chris Hayes, mayor of Whitehaven, responded: "At our full council meeting on May 25, we reported our architects were seeking quotes to carry out the re-vamp of our offices.

"Councillor Dinsdale proposed we should consult with the public about going forward.

"The proposal was seconded by his daughter, councillor Gemma Dinsdale, after a long discussion about this being late in the process to propose this and the fact councillor Edwin Dinsdale was on the office steering group to drive it forward for some two years and never proposed this years ago.

"A vote was taken: eight voted against the proposal, two abstained and two voted for.

"This was a democratic decision. It is noted in the minutes which will be on our website."