Council bosses have come under fire over plans to hand over the running of a prestigious new car park to a controversial parking firm.

The council wants to sub-let the facility at Buchanan Galleries to arms-length organisation City Parking on a 25-year lease.

But opposition councillors have hit out at the move, claiming there are "serious concerns" about the plans.

Leader of the opposition on the council,

Susan Aitken, said councillors had pushed through the deal" with a firm facing "serious

financial problems".

She added: "No reputable company would make a major decision without being fully informed of the financial consequences."

As reported earlier, the council-owned firm has lost £28 million in value since it started trading in 2007, and received a £2m loan from the local authority.

The loan, the latest in a long line of cash bailouts, replaced an existing temporary bank credit facilitywhich, according to the council, has been repaid in full to the bank.

Despite the concerns, councillors voted to allow thebusiness to be given the lease when the five-storey facility opens in the Buchanan Galleries extension.

The car park will include one-way traffic circulation, 2.5 metre wide parking bays and a new traffic management system including tell-tale bay markers and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR).

Completion of the extension and car park are scheduled for the end of 2017.

At the council's

executive meeting,

Patrick Flynn, head of housing regeneration services, said there had been negotiations for "some time" on the facility.

He said: "The lease gives a base rent and equity rent and

reduces the risk to City Parking."

When asked for

details, Mr Flynn said it would "be inappropriate to reveal the

financial terms of the agreement at a public meeting", causing uproar among some members of the committee.

After the meeting, MsAitken said: "There are serious concerns about City Parking's business model, but

ignored those and pushed through a deal with a company facing serious financial complications.

"No reputable company would make a major decision without being fully informed of the financial consequences, but that's what councillors were expected to do - and when opposition councillors asked for more time to access the relevant information, we were voted down.

"The people of Glasgow deserve better."