The controversial multi-million pound Whitesands flood defence scheme will be back up in front of councillors next week.
Members of Wednesday’s planning applications committee are being asked to approve the local authority’s own plans to vary conditions of planning permission for the project to create a car park on the Greensands.
The council wants to make “improvements” in the area and create “contingency parking” to compensate for the loss of spaces during the construction of the scheme.
However, there is confusion over the current state of the project after the Conservative budget, which was voted through in February, proposed no future funding for the scheme.
There have been more than 30 objections to the plans so far to the local authority.
John Dowson, a staunch opponent of the plans, said: “It is my understanding that the original planning approval given by Scottish Government after the public inquiry has lapsed as more than three years have passed and it no longer valid.
“It is therefore not competent for the council to consider variations to a planning application which has lapsed and effectively no longer exists.
“This planning application is premature and should be withdrawn as it is contrary to council policy recently agreed at the council budget setting meeting.
“Council policy was clearly set that day by the councillors taking this budget decision and clarifying at the meeting that the Whitesands scheme is postponed ‘indefinitely’.
“Many members of the public, including myself, are confused about the status of this application. Is it valid or has its time lapsed?
“Is it a variation of conditions on a flood scheme or an attempt to renew an application which is now over three years old?
“Is it a ‘standalone application’ as stated in Mott McDonald’s information or is it in fact the first phase of a flood scheme that may never be built?
“It is also premature as a commitment has been made to carry out a ‘review’ of the whole scheme. Until such a review is commissioned and completed no part of the scheme should be progressed, partly because it is contrary to policy, and partly because the review is likely to bring forward new information that will make this extra car parking unnecessary.”
