A DECISION to sell one of the borough's best known assets has infuriated councillors after it was made behind closed doors.
The future of Old House, one of the one of the borough's most recognised buildings, had already been decided, even before last Wednesday's meeting when councillors formally voted for it.
But the fact the details were discussed in private has angered many councillors who still believe the listed building should be kept in council hands.
They believe money acquired from the sale of other council assets could be invested to transform the dilapidated building in Shenfield Road into seven flats that could be rented out.
The group, including Liberal Democrat, Labour and Brentwood First members, dismiss the ruling Tory group's belief that the Grade II listed property could only be split into three flats.
The administration rejected a feasibility report produced by the former Asset Panel chairman Russell Quirk last summer.
Councillors read in a secret document, produced by architectural firm Purcell, that the rent collected would amount to £64,200 a year for three flats.
The document, seen by the Gazette, said that a seven-apartment proposal would be unlikely to get listed building consent but could see the council collect up to £90,000 a year.
Mr Quirk said: "I believe the report has been contrived to make the project look unviable particularly by hanging the whole decision on the supposition without any testing of the claim that 'listed building consent would be unlikely for seven flats'.
"Bear in mind that many local listed buildings have been converted in order to preserve them for future use."
Mr Quirk, ward member for Hutton North, added: "The only thing stopping this deal going ahead is the supposition from Purcell's that listed building consent is not likely. Why not test that and apply for it? If we get it then the deal is back on."
Labour group leader Mike Le-Surf also disagreed with the decision.
"It's just short-sighted economics. The building has not been used for the benefit of residents, it's been used to make a fast buck."
Council leader Louise McKinlay said the report was confidential, on pink paper, as it contained "commercially sensitive figures."
She said: "It is a public property but that doesn't mean it should be in the public domain. The figures to keep it in the hands of the council don't stack up."