LABOUR councillors voted to spend £3million towards plans for the former Exxon Bowling site without have specifics on what it’s for and before a price is even set to buy the land.

At the council meeting, officials said they needed the cash to prepare more specific plans for the area, whose future has been slowly lurching forward over at least a decade.

Council bosses wanted an extra £2.948million from the City Deal to “progress works towards a final business case” due at the end of 2019.

A report to the authority said it would include design works on the local of road access and rail crossing, feasibility studies, planning requirements and more.

But, opposition councillors said they were concerned about how vague the spending and the time table appeared.

SNP Councillor Ian Murray, who represents the Dumbarton ward, admitted it was “crunch stage” in terms of how much they could spend without knowing if the land was too contaminated to use and too expensive to buy from Exxon.

He said: “I accept the strategic case that’s been made and if we don’t proceed, we won’t get the growth we need in West Dunbartonshire – and we need investment in this site.

“We’re being asked to commit another £3m and it’s a risk if we don’t conclude an agreement with Exxon.”

The council has not met Exxon since December 15, and the next meeting was cancelled, even though the heads of terms were meant to be agreed by the end of March.

An environmental impact assessment will not be completed until December 2017 and only then could a price be set for the land, councillors were told.

SNP group leader, Councillor Jonathan McColl, said: “Can we get any detail at all on how the first year’s moneys are going to be spent?

“How much is expected to be spent before council we have the opportunity to look at this again?”

Jim McAloon, the council’s strategic lead for regeneration, said £130-150k would be spent by the middle of April.

But Leven councillor Jim Bollan hit out: “We are being asked to spend £3m but there’s not detail at all. No breakdown. It’s undemocratic.

“We are always being told to have financial information before we make decisions.

“There’s community groups that apply for £100 and they’re given the third degree.”

Despite the large number of council officers in the chamber for the meeting, nobody had a detailed breakdown of the spending.

But Mr McAloon stated: “I don’t think it would be anywhere near 50 per cent of what we’re asking for. But I can’t say how much it is.

“I would not just go and spend the money.”

Cllr Murray replied: “I’m happy to give you £150k – it’s the big money we’re talking about.”

Councillor George Black said the entire report was designed to “confuse rather than enlighten”.

The SNP said they were in favour of the use of the land but Cllr McColl asked for a decision on the £3m to be delayed a month to obtain a full breakdown. He insisted councillors are taught “the first day” not to make a decision without all the facts.

But his amendment was rejected by Labour councillors who approved the report and the extra spending on a vote of 12-10.