COUNCIL bosses are “shocked” at an apparent lack of interest across Clydebank in plans for a new £78m swing bridge across the Clyde.

Planners said they were surprised at the relative silence from the public and community groups and urged them to get in touch.

But councillors on West Dunbartonshire Council’s planning committee were told to wait until assessments of the traffic impact of a bridge on Dock Street and the businesses in Clydebank were carried out next month.

After last week’s meeting, council leader Jonathan McColl agreed all local groups should wait for the reports and insisted community councils would be consulted fully.

The application for a bridge from Renfrew to Clydebank includes more than 100 documents, some with dozens of pages each, and many relevant to developments in Renfrewshire only.

The document had to be pared back after the Post raised questions about the confusion such a large plan poses to the public.

But weeks later, the council backed Renfrewshire Council’s request for the bridge be approved or rejected by the Scottish Government, taking it entirely out of local control.

Councillor McColl was consulted by planners who had no objection to Renfrewshire Council sending the decision to Holyrood.

Clydebank councillors have never voted on the bridge, and it emerged at last week’s meeting proposals will only go to the planning committee for their formal response to Scottish ministers, meaning the full West Dunbartonshire Council may never get a vote on the bridge.

But planning services manager Pamela Clifford said details on how the government’s planning reporter will decide on the application haven’t been set out yet, adding it could include a public inquiry or public hearings.

Ms Clifford said the decision was due to the plan straddling three local authorities with the likelihood of the government involvement in any case.

She said there had been “very limited” representation from the public about the bridge.

Ms Clifford said: “If community councils have concerns, I would strongly recommend they submit them as soon as possible either to ourselves or to the DPEA (Planning and Environmental Appeals Division).

“There was very little representation [from the public] and that will be a factor in the determination.

“If there are concerns, that’s not coming forward from the community.”

Peter Hessett, the council’s head of legal, democratic and regulatory services, told the meeting: “We were very surprised at the lack of responses from the community.

“They have been asked.

“The community needs to express those views because they didn’t take that opportunity.”

But he added: “I would counsel against a councillor putting a formal view before we have full information.”

Cllr Lawrence O’Neill said: “We have never had a vote and I’m disappointed that we as an authority, rightly or wrongly, agreed to a request from Renfrewshire Council to approach for a call-in on this.

“It will have a huge impact on West Dunbartonshire and around Dock Street in particular. For us as a planning authority to have no say in it whatsoever, that has been removed entirely.

“I would have had some representation to make if I knew it was not coming to planning committee.”

Speaking after the meeting, Cllr McColl said had two options on whether the application was called in by the government. Legally the bridge would have had to be considered by the planning committee last week, even though reports aren’t ready on the roads and business cases.

Instead, he supported Renfrewshire Council’s request to have the government make the decision as “it gives local councillors the best opportunity to have a say in the determination of the application”.

He added: “The planning committee can choose to make a submission itself, refer it to the full council, write to community councils to seek their views to include them with our submission or whatever they want to do.

“But the important thing is, they will have the factual evidence from the roads and economic impact reports backing up any decision they make.

“I think for obvious reasons, I chose option two, which gives local democratically elected councillors a meaningful say in the decision.”