THERE were angry scenes and allegations of a "whitewash" after it emerged an email sent by a consultant employed by West Somerset Council could cost the cash-stricken authority £210,918.

The email from Cyril Sweett, the firm appointed by the council to project manage its new office development, was sent to building contractor Mansell and said senior council officers had agreed last August to pay £3,093,424 for the Williton offices, almost £211,000 more than originally planned.

The revelation saw ruling cabinet members and senior officers accused of "despicable" behaviour, while councillors said they had been "misled" during protracted negotiations over the final bill for authority's new Williton offices.

It is also forced a u-turn on a decision taken just a month ago, when councillors refused to sign-off the contract overspend - on advice given at the time by senior representatives from Cyril Sweett.

The consultants persuaded officers to advise councillors to appoint a mediator to resolve outstanding issues with contractor Mansell.

But it has now emerged that seven days before the meeting, Mansell emailed Cyril Sweett to say as far as they were concerned the final payment had already been agreed with senior council officers last August.

Cyril Sweett, which is being paid at least £116,000 by the authority, emailed back supporting Mansell and claiming "the account" had been agreed by "you, me, SW [council officer Steve Watts] and the chief executive [Adrian Dyer, the council's executive director]".

However, at a council meeting a week later, representatives from Cyril Sweett did not mention the email and said they were unable to produce any evidence to substantiate the overspend figure and could not say how it had built-up.

This week, Mr Dyer told councillors he taken independent legal advice after January's meeting and been advised the authority would be better to hold informal meetings with all those concerned rather than go down the mediation route.

Mr Dyer said: "I'm not proposing to go into any detail on the advice I have received about potential action against Cyril Sweett because I think it would be wrong to go into that in public session.

"The issue tonight is not if this council takes action against Cyril Sweett, it is whether we settle the final account with Mansell."

Cllr Hugh Davies - who successfully challenged a cabinet decision to settle Mansell's demand last year - said he had warned council officers "time and time again" that the problem lay with Cyril Sweett and not Mansell.

"Cyril Sweett knew when they came here on January 27 that they had sent an email to pay up.

"That man [from Cyril Sweett] blatantly didn't give us what we wanted to know.

"Most of all we learn that the officers were aware payment was to be made but we weren't told.

"They knew the payment was authorised. Someone has been doing a whitewash on this job and we shouldn't allow it to happen," Cllr Davies said.

Cllr Neil Parbrook, who had led an unsuccessful bid for an informal meeting last month, was damning in his condemnation of the council's ruling councillors and officers.

"Cyril Sweett had already said we would pay the money but at the last meeting they didn't think to mention that.

"I am disgusted you feel you can behave like this. I believe cabinet and senior officers have serious questions to answer.

"It is despicable. It makes me ashamed to be a councillor," Cllr Parbrook said.

He was supported by Conservative group leader Cllr Tim Taylor who formally put forward a proposal to hold an informal meeting "to find out what the issues are" and to report back to full council.

"If we as a council have agreed to Cyril Sweett's request that we pay Mansell we haven't got a leg to stand on, but we don't know," he said.

"Until we look at that in a small group we don't know what we're talking about."

He was seconded by Cllr Jon Freeman: "The original issues were with Cyril Sweett and the utterly shambolic project management of this from beginning to end."

But cabinet member Cllr Doug Ross was supported by deputy leader Cllr Michael Downes when he unsuccessfully called for Mansell to be paid first and the finer details looked at afterwards.

"How can we as a responsible body refuse to pay a sum that has been agreed with Mansell?" Cllr Ross said.

Cllr Downes added: "We can't keep going on having these debates and avoiding critical decisions.

"The amount of money in dispute with Mansell is actually quite small."

But councillors voted 17-5 not to settle the bill before having a private meeting with all those concerned and reporting back to full council.

Cabinet members had originally agreed to pay the £210,918 overspend back in October when Mr Dyer advised that the figure was far less than Mansell's original demand for an extra £492,930.

He had also warned that settling the bill would be far cheaper than the "high risk strategy" of going to arbitration.

But other councillors, led by Cllr Davies, successfully challenged the decision and in November members of the scrutiny committee were sufficiently concerned to refer the matter back to full council.

That meeting finally took place at the January and there was criticism that despite three months elapsing and three council meetings, the information requested by members was still not forthcoming.