THE process of determining the final bidders for Helensburgh’s waterfront site has been unfair to the people of the town, a councillor has claimed.

Discussion on the fate of the site took place at a meeting of local councillors at a meeting on Tuesday, March 12 – but all details of the five remaining bidders remained confidential to the public.

Two of the five bids have been identified by council officials as preferred options – but it was also confirmed that councillors could express a preference for any or all of the other three.

Councillor Fiona Howard (Labour, Helensburgh Central) told the meeting of Argyll and Bute Council’s Helensburgh and Lomond area committee: “I am a bit disappointed we have got to two preferred choices without any consultation with the area committee.

“We were promised right at the beginning of the process that we would be consulted all the way along the line.

“And here we are with five bidders, two of them chosen not by us, not by anybody other than council officers. I really do not think that is a fair way to treat the people of Helensburgh.

“They need to have their representatives having a good look at all five candidates, including speaking to them face to face. It should be what the people of Helensburgh want.”

Councillor Gemma Penfold (Conservative, Helensburgh and Lomond South) said: “I think it was agreed at a previous area committee what it was we were looking for, and officers have gone away and marked the bids on a system.”

Councillor Gary Mulvaney (Conservative, Helensburgh and Lomond South) added: “We agreed, as an area committee, the criteria. We allowed officers to bring forward what the proposals would be – would we just go out the market, or would members and officers do different things at different times?

“We agreed a process and the criteria that was worded in terms of economic development, planning and financial outcomes. We have then invited developers to put these submissions in, and we asked officers to go away and score them.

“We agreed this process, and if you were not clear about that process six to nine months ago, then you should not have agreed it.”

Councillor Howard responded: “I am not arguing with any of that. What I am arguing about is that we were promised we would be kept briefed on each part of the process, and have not been.”

Ross McLaughlin, the council’s head of commercial services, said: “We had the process set out back in September, and had an exempt appendix with the nine bidders at that stage.

“Officers then made the decision to restrict that from nine, and allowed the ones looking more favourable to have a second stage.

“This is what we have today, so now is the time; today is the day. This is the first junction. Officers have looked at those five bids and are sharing their findings.

“We have been a year at this and we are now at the sharp end. This is now for members to take it to the next stage.”

Councillor Ian MacQuire (SNP, Helensburgh Central) then asked: “You said we were discussing all five bids. Does that mean the two recommended, we do not have to agree? If we decide we would rather have one of the other three, can we turn that around?”

Mr McLaughlin said: “It is up to the committee on that, but the recommendations we have put forward today, we will make sure these are made very clear to the policy and resources committee.”

The meeting then moved into private session, with the press and public excluded.