A BID by Tory councillors to revisit the planned demolition of Ayr’s high flats has been voted down.

Conservative councillor Lee Lyons, depute leader of South Ayrshire Council, wanted answers on the status of work being carried out at Riverside Place, the full cost of the demolition, the steps the council would need to take to cancel the demolition and the consequences of such a decision.

In a motion to the last full council meeting before the summer recess, Cllr Lyons, seconded by independent Bob Shields, also asked for a new report on how the council could refurbish the three blocks, along with the cost and timescale for such a programme.

Labour group leader Cllr Brian McGinley, who championed the replacement of the flats as part of the last administration, said that he was happy for councillors to seek information, but pointed out that the decision had already been taken and proposed an amendment to continue the current work.

And independent councillor Alec Clark, who was given a senior role by the new administration having been part of the last one, said: “There is only one tenant left in high flats. All the rest have been relocated or temporarily relocated in new properties.”

Cllr Clark added that the buildings were "riddled with asbestos" and questioned how any change in plan could be put in place.

Labour’s Ian Cavana agreed, adding that one of the main reasons for his backing of demolition was the lack of fire and rescue equipment to reach the top of the flats.

“I’m sorry," he said, "the high flats are past their sell by date.”

SNP councillor Julie Dettbarn said that surveys had given the flats a lifespan of 20 to 25 years and questioned spending millions on prolonging their lifespan.

The Kyle councillor added that she was ‘appalled’ by the suggestion that the flats could be used for supported living accommodation for vulnerable people.

She told the administration: “Visit Fort Sreet to see the standard of housing people require for supported living.”

Cllr Shields, who campaigned prior to his election on the issue of the flats, said: “This is last throw of the dice for these flats."

He criticised SNP group leader Peter Henderson for suggesting there would be a need for more council housing "yet be happy to second an amendment that condemns a potential 200-plus council houses to death".

He argued that asbestos could be controlled, saying that "the word is now more scary than the stuff itself" and that if the material was managed it could be "harmless".

Cllr Shields also claimed the cost estimates by SAC officials for saving the flats had been "vastly inflated", and suggested that point had been "proved" by expert witnesses.

“All I am asking is to give the council a bit more breathing space so that questions can be answered," Cllr Shields added.

"Then the council can decide with the information in front of them.”

Donald Gillies, head of the authority's place directorate, said he would expect the asbestos to be removed during any refurbishment work.

He also suggested that the figure stated for refurbishment was given in good faith.

Mr Gillies also pointed out that many of the issues with the buildings had come to light after the Grenfell Tower fire, and that the blocks had some weaknesses, such as potential fire transfer in the void between the cladding and concrete structure.

SNP group leader Peter Henderson said he found the timing of the request "very strange".

He said that almost all of the information being requested by the Conservatives was available and questioned why the party hadn't called in the demolition decision during the SNP administration which ran the council prior to the May 5 election.

Cllr Henderson said: “This was not a decision which was made lightly. We need modern council housing to meet new standards.”

Depute leader Lyons had the final word, suggesting that Cllr McGinley was the only member to speak to the motion itself.

He said: “That was absolutely fascinating. So many people jumped in with a comment, question or observation.

"But I only noted one person in the room actually spoke to the motion, rather than inventing what it might or might not be about.”

An amendment to continue the demolition work was passed, with 15 councillors in favour, while 10 voted for the motion.