Why Flamingo Land's Lomond Banks sparked record objections

Loch Lomond is many different things to many different people. It's Runrig. It's an old paddle steamer. It's a picnic on the shore. But is it also a commercial resort with lodges, swimming pool and craft brewery developed by the operator behind the Yorkshire-based theme-park, Flamingo Land?

The answer to that question is set to be decided at a public hearing on September 16.

The biggest freshwater lake in the British mainland is at the centre of one of the most fraught planning applications in Scottish history. The figures objecting tell a story. The most recent Save Loch Lomond petition, ‘Object to Flamingo Land 2.0’ – has now reached well over 140,000 signatures. At last count, of 1213 submissions to the Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park portal, the vast majority (985) of which are objections.

If we are asking why this might be – what it is about the Flamingo Land’s Lomond Banks proposal that causes such antagonism – some of the answers can be found in the written objections themselves. But they can also be found in the story of the petition itself and those who set it up.

Two of the figures who are at the heart of this are Alannah Maurer and Ross Greer, the West of Scotland Scottish Green Party MSP who has spear-headed the campaign.

Eight years after he began the fight, he describes it as “the defining regional issue” of his time as MSP. He recalls how quickly, following early meetings with residents, Save Loch Lomond campaigners and Flamingo Land representatives, he came to the view that “there was just no way this was going to be an appropriate development”.

“I realised,” he says, “that I was going to have to oppose this development”. Hence, the Scottish Green Party got involved, helping the Save Loch Lomond campaign, and setting up the petition that ultimately would collect the historic number of objections. The form of that petition was key – for it was no ordinary petition. It was an objection portal, a customisable template that members of the public could easily fill in, to send an individual objection directly to the National Park. Almost from the day it went up online it was clear, Greer recalls, that what was happening was going to be record-breaking.

“Within 24-48 hours we had 20,000,” Greer recalls, “and I’m pretty sure that the most objected to proposal before that point was Trump’s Aberdeenshire golf development, which was something in the region of 10,000 objections. The moment that we launched the objection portal and realised we had that many we knew it would be the most unpopular in Scottish history. The first application totalled out at about 60,000. This one has just blown that away completely. We’re at just over 140,000 now.”

Templates had been used before for campaigns to lobby politicians, but this use for a planning application was quite new. He recalls: “There are very few planning applications that become national issues. The approach that we took to the campaign was a bit novel. Our intention at that point wasn’t  to turn it into a national campaign. Our primary objective in creating that portal was to help local residents who wanted to object. Because so often people want to object but they don’t know how. They find the process very daunting.”

What was surprising even to them was how it spread outside of the local area. “When we started off we knew it would be the defining issue in Balloch. But we didn’t expect it would become such a high-profile issue nationally. It really has resonated with so many people across Scotland and across the UK.”

Ross Greer at a public meeting (Image: Supplied)

Why? “The primary reason?" he says. "Because it is just such a bad development. That’s what was really animating people. We provided a platform, but 140,000 people have objected because this is just such an appalling idea, not just because we made it easy for them.”

But it’s also possible that one of the reasons that it has gained quite so much anitpathy is down to a form of misunderstanding or misrepresentation, across media and social media, of what the development is. Even now, it is referred to by some as a theme park, rather than the Center Parcs type resort the proposal describes.

It also doesn’t help that it is widely, and casually, referred to as Flamingo Land, its identity fused with that of the theme-park operator company behind it, in spite of its creation of subsidiaries, first Iconic Leisure Limited and then Lomond Banks. There's a reason for this - and it's not just that Flamingo Land is more inflammatory; it also sticks vividly in the mind.

As Fiona Robertson of Streets UK, community engagement lead for Lomond Banks, observes. “Those people who are opposed to the development continue to misrepresent it, by calling it Flamingo Land and by perpetuating the theme park description.”

For Ross Greer, the biggest issue with the development has always been its scale. “I had a meeting with Scottish Enterprise close tot the start, 2017/18, where they asked me what would be needed for me to support this development. I said, 'There’s simply no way that I can support this development, both because of the specifics of it, but also because of the scale.

“This is just way too big. It would bring far too many cars onto the road. It would require far too much disruption of the natural environment. The scale is going to push local community out of their green space. It’s also a development based on cars. They are going to create 372 car parking spaces. It will be attracting more cars, massive impact for the local community, making congested roads more congested. The climate impact from that is obvious as well.”

To get a wider view of the range of objections to the resort, it’s also possible to look at some of the comments submitted to the Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park planning portal for the development. They give an indication not only of the strength of feeling, but the reasons so many are set against the plan.

A much repeated fear is that it will impact on the park’s beauty. “As a current visitor from US, I consider the natural beauty of this area its greatest asset,” writes one. Another declares: “This is an area known world wide for its outstanding beauty. Please don't sell us out.”

Others include:

“We need to keep our wild spaces wild.”

“Keep our nature free of over-commercialised ventures which will just make profit at the expense of Scotland's beauty and normal people's enjoyment of the landscape.”

 “The proposed development has raised significant objections within our community, including concerns about environmental impact, disruption of local wildlife, and the potential for irreversible damage to our natural heritage. The overwhelming sentiment among residents is clear: we do not support this project.”

“I strongly object! Our roads are congested enough, on nice days it can take ages to get anywhere, if there's an accident it's chaos, adding, sometimes hours onto local journeys. It's laughable that there is a congestion charge in Glasgow, yet our area would be flooded with motor vehicles.”

But now and then, scattered amidst the notes of objection and submissions from community groups, experts and stakeholders, there is a message of support. Most seem like cut-and-paste responses, with the line “delete/amend as appropriate” still included. But there are those that do go into some detail about why they support the project – and frequently it comes down to jobs.

Artist's impression of Lomond Banks (Image: Lomond Banks)

One, a lecturer in economics, born in the area, writes on grounds of “Local Economic Growth and Development”, which is described as “a key advantage of the proposals” Another says, “It will bring much needed jobs to an area and is not imposing or ridiculously planned, [and] is also proposed in an area that is also built up and an area used for constructed recreation and amenity.”

The objections and messages of support are also reminders of the range of demographics who feel an investment in and connection to Loch Lomond – not just residents, but those living much farther afield.

Since this a national park, says Alannah Maurer, it is not surprising that outsiders  feel involved. “I have lots of discussions about whether people outside of Balloch should get to have a say in this, and I agree that it’s the local people who will suffer most and should have their say. However, this is a National Park. The clue is in the name and every one of us is a tax payer, all funding Scottish Enterprise, all funding the national park, all funding the government, so does that not mean every single person in Scotland should have a say.”

She observes how particularly intense that connection is for the people of Glasgow. "Balloch is the gateway to Loch Lomond. It’s the southernmost tip, easily accessible to the public, always has been, as someone who came from a poor working-class background in Glasgow I know what it means to people in Glasgow. This is day trip. They get on the train. And for a small price they can sit on the shores on Loch Lomond, the kids can paddle, they can have a picnic.”

The question of how to develop the south end of the loch has long been debated. Lomond Banks cites Sir Patrick Abercrombie, whose 1946 Clyde Valley Plan prescribed the development of a “great reception point” for Loch Lomond at the southern tip.

READ MORE: 

• 'People continue to misrepresent by calling it Flamingo Land'
• Flamingo Land's Lomond Banks. The controversy explained
• Flamingo Land's Lomond Banks: the controversy from all sides

The architect notably also described that area, at the time, as “a disgraceful introduction to such a wonderland of natural beauty'". His idea of a reception point, however, has never quite gone away. In 1997, James S Gorie of the Scottish Development Agency wrote, "Loch Lomond is a neglected national treasure with its short southern shore and the adjoining Vale of Leven crying out for major redevelopment.”

Rare is the person who says development is not needed – but what development? And where does the boundary line between development and over-commercialisation or over-tourism? 

Most important of all, who gets to decide?

Certainly there are those in the Balloch community who believe that it should be the people who live there, perhaps even by taking ownership through ‘right to buy’. The fight is now on, by some locals, to realise it through the newly created Loch Lomond South Community Development Trust.

Lynne Somerville, the local community council chair and a key figure behind this plan, is passionate about a different kind of development, and a different gateway to Loch Lomond: one that is more about SMEs,  possibly a forest school, a place to meet and develop networks and ideas in a village that currently has no community centre.

Will they get to realise their vision? The decision over the planning application, which will be made, following a public hearing on September 16, will no doubt have an impact. And one thing is for sure, given all the strength of feeling, emotions will run high.  This is Loch Lomond, after all.