On September 16, following a marathon session of site-visit, hearing, and meeting in the lochside village of Balloch, the Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority board is set to make a decision on the controversial Lomond Banks project.
The resort comprising woodland lodges, hotels, monorail, waterpark and other facilities, has been proposed for the southernmost point of Loch Lomond. Frequently the development is referred to as 'Flamingo Land' Loch Lomond, since its parent company is the Yorkshire theme park operator.
The decision, which is being made on the second application for the development, could bring to conclusion an eight-year-long saga, during which the proposal has become the ‘most objected to’ planning application in history. Most of those objections have been received through a petition objection portal created by the Scottish Greens and the Save Loch Lomond campaign, which now has over 154,000 signatures.
Already, the Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority has published a report recommending that the application be rejected. However, this is not the final decision on the proposal, which will be made by the board members, following a site visit, hearing and meeting, set to be held at Lomond Parish church.
Due to the degree of interest and number of people wanting to speak, it is expected that the meeting may go on late, possibly till 7pm.
Can the public attend or stream the hearing and meeting?
Yes, these will be accessible for members of the public to attend in person (numbers will be limited by venue capacity) at 13:15hrs at Lomond Parish Church, Balloch, G83 8RJ. They will also be livestreamed on National Park authority website for members of the public to view.
Only those who have already applied to speak will be able to contribute on the day.
- Watch the meeting through this link.
- Read all the articles from the Herald's Flamingo Land investigative series here
Who is confirmed to speak and what have they said about the application?
The National Park Authority received 13 applications to speak at the hearing for this planning application – 5 in support and 8 in objection to the proposal. The authority suspended its usual procedures to allow all those who have applied to speak to do so, and all speakers will have up to 5 minutes plus possible question time.
Lynne Somerville, Balloch & Haldane Community Council, objecting
"Loch Lomond, the jewel in Scotland’s crown, deserves much more than a 90’s style commercialised water park. “The proposed development has a 100-year lease attached, making it not just a living hell and a no-go zone for those locally but also those in neighbouring regions directly impacted by the impact of over-tourism and the bi-products that such will birth.
The development is in breach of multiple policies contained within the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation (NSET). Policies that are in place to protect communities from development yet appear to be denied due to the exclusivity agreement that Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority, Scottish Enterprise, and the developer, Lomond Banks (Flamingo Land) have agreed between them, with no input from the community or consideration to the fact that the majority voted against this development.”
Read the full article here: Community development trust is answer to Flamingo Land fight
Steve Callan, planner, and Fiona Robertson, community engagement lead for Lomond Banks, supporting
Fiona Roberton: “Those people who are opposed to the development continue to misrepresent it, by calling it Flamingo Land and by perpetuating the theme park description. I have lost count of the number of people who told me they have signed up to object to the development because they thought they were objecting to a theme park being created – and that’s not what it is.
"When you then explain to them actually the proposals are for holiday lodges, a hotel with an indoor swimming pool and spa and for a budget hotel and for a renewed village square in Balloch, people do raise their eyebrows.”
"We've tried to address concerns that have come from the community. For example, early on a big concern was about ongoing public access to the site. A commitment has been made that there would be unfettered access to the whole site including the boats that moor along the River Leven. Their right of access is protected."
“None of the site will be fenced off or in any other way exclusionary. The whole West Riverside, which runs along the length of the River Leven and was previously the railway sidings remains as a wooded area with a footpath winding through. Drumkinnon Woods remains intact, but Lomond Banks will take on the responsibility for properly managing and looking after that woodland.”
Read the full article here: 'People continue to misrepresent by calling it Flamingo Land'
Ross Greer MSP, representing those who submitted objections via the portal on the Scottish Green Party’s website
"The primary reason over 150,000 people have objected? Because it is just such a bad development. That’s what was really animating people. We provided a platform, but 150,000 people have objected because this is just such an appalling idea, not just because we made it easy for them.
One of the biggest issues for me is 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.”
Read the full article here: Why Flamingo Land's Lomond Banks sparked record objections
Rev Ian H Miller, parish minister, in support
"I have spent 49 years here. I love the place, I love the people – they have been incredibly good to me and mine. I have laughed with them at weddings and christenings, I have wept with them when they have lost a loved one. I can assure you I would support nothing that I believed might be to the detriment of this place.
I believe Balloch needs this, as does the community of the Vale of Leven and the entire West Dumbarton area. I hope and pray that this time sanity will prevail . The claim is made that Balloch is “one of the most desirable tourist’s destinations in Scotland.” Will this development make it more attractive? I would say so. I believe that Lomond Banks will provide inward investment, bring employment to the area and make Balloch the gateway to the National Park that it deserves to be."
Read the full article here: 'I am convinced Lomond Banks can be good for our area'
Jackie Baillie MSP, objecting
"I objected to the previous application and I am going to maintain my objection. I think the offering has improved – but I don’t think it has improved enough."
"I think we can do better. The community is quite divided. Some people just want us to get on with it and I recognise their frustration. But this is a significant piece of land right at the gateway to Loch Lomond. We need to make sure that what’s on it is right for the area.”
Read the full article here: Scottish Government should 'call in' Flamingo Land decision
Anne Urquhart, Loch Lomond Steamship Company, in support
Loch Lomond Steamship Company Chair, Iain Robertson in 2022, wrote the following letter submitted to the planning authority portal:
"In general we believe the additional accommodation and facilities will benefit Balloch and the wider area in terms of increased economic activity and jobs both on site and throughout the extended supply chain. We also think it will benefit complementary tourist and leisure businesses including PS Maid of the Loch by providing an enhanced visitor experience. A key element of the application is the transport link via monorail to the pierhead area. This link was lost in 1986 when the railway was terminated in Balloch village. We welcome this transport link which we believe will enable visitors of all abilities to travel to the Pier, the Historic Steam Slipway, PS Maid of the Loch and Loch Lomond Shores without the necessity of arriving in the area by car. It will also encourage visitors to Lomond Shores to visit Balloch Village a benefit which has eluded the village for over 20 years."
James Fraser, Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs, in support
From correspondence lodged on the LLTNPA portal, August 16, 2022:
"We welcome the £40 million tourism led development plans coming forward for Balloch at the present time as the village is facing an uncertain and challenging future as a thriving tourist destination. At present, despite the village being one of the main gateways to the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park, it is not realising its full tourism potential as a green and sustainable ‘must visit’ tourist destination and there is an urgent need to regenerate and strengthen the appeal of the village to support and sustain existing businesses and the associated jobs, as well as creating many additional year-round employment opportunities for residents of West Dunbartonshire which are easily accessible by public transport."
Cllr Jonathan McColl, objecting
From a letter submitted to the planning portal on April 25, 2024
"I am emailing this objection to you as the Planning Portal’s character limit is too restrictive for the length of my comments. I would also like to request to speak at the hearing regarding my objection to the application. As a local elected member of West Dunbartonshire Council for Ward 1 (Lomond), I formally object to the planning application on the following grounds: The application is not in keeping with the Park Authority’s primary and overriding policy objective of ‘Conserving and Enhancing the natural and cultural heritage of the area.’ This development will bring significant economic risk for the local area and local businesses. While it might be considered that the permanent and seasonal jobs being created would be a real boost to the West Dunbartonshire economy, given the type of development being proposed, it is more likely that the site will be in direct competition with local accommodation, hospitality and leisure facilities; the risk to local jobs and businesses is unacceptable."
Ian Cowan, on behalf of Ross Greer MSP, objecting
From a letter submitted to the planning authority portal, June 21, 2024
"My client further objects to the Application, as further varied and supplemented by the Additional Environmental Information, on the grounds that, in relation to Zone B, (a) it is in breach of NPF4 Policy 22, and none of the exceptions set out in that policy apply, and (b) there has been no assessment of the risks to human health posed by the juxtaposition of heavy metal contamination, flood risk and holiday accommodation".
Also speaking are Christine Aitchison, objecting; Stewart Gibb, Helensburgh and District Access Trust, in support; Simon Ritchie, Woodland Trust Scotland, in objection; Jack Fordy, Bonhill & Dalmonach Community Council, objecting.
Why did the National Park authority report recommend rejecting it?
The report concluded that the proposal would result in a significant amount of development that would be in an area of flood risk where no policy exceptions support it.
The Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park authority has published a report recommending that Flamingo Land’s Lomond Banks planning application be refused.
The report, which is issued by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) Board Director of Place, however, is not the final decision and only outlines a recommendation to the park authority board.
The decision on the application, said to be the "most objected to" in Scottish history, with 150,000 signatures objecting to it through a petition portal, is due to be made by the board on September 16. Campaigners described the recommendation as "a huge victory".
Locals at Balloch and Haldane Community Council said that they "welcome" the decision to recommend refusal. The community council is behind a new community development trust which hopes to develop parts of the site itself.
The report follows a detailed assessment and consideration of key documents, policies and statutory requirements. It also takes account of “consultation responses from local and national public bodies, other statutory consultees, and representations from members of the public that identify relevant planning considerations”.
The report, which runs to more than 150 pages, addresses all matters relating to the major planning application. It concludes that the proposal would result in a significant amount of development that would be in an area of flood risk where no policy exceptions support it.
“It would also,” it said, “result in the removal and clearance of trees and woodland without appropriate compensatory planting and would not deliver the required significant biodiversity enhancements that would support wider outcomes to tackle the nature and climate crises as outlined in National Planning Framework 4 and the National Park Partnership Plan.”
“Following a detailed assessment, the scale of the proposal overall is considered to be in conflict with the site’s capacity for development.”
The report also stated that the application does not comply with the Local Development Plan for the National Park, National Planning Framework 4 or the National Park Partnership Plan.
"It presents a conflict," it said, "between the first National Park aim (‘to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area’) and the fourth National Park aim (‘to promote the sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities’), meaning the National Park Authority must give greater weight to the first aim (this is known as ‘the Sandford Principle’)."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel