Flamingo Land's Lomond Banks failed to move with the times

Was it a win for a highly effective campaign against an unpopular development, or a failure by the developers, who had already been cornered into withdrawing one application, to embrace the way the moods of public and policy have shifted since their first application?

Was it also the failure of this Flaming Land-owned company to acknowledge that the goal posts are shifting, and how with climate change flood risk is changing, and attempt to dismiss flood risk through a get-out clause? And a  failure to take seriously the biodiversity issue within the context of a National Park and new policy within the National Planning Framework?”

It seems it was all these things - both the fierce campaign and the key issues raised in the report issued by the LLTNPA, which recommended refusal, in the run-up, and many of the board members in their questions.

This, the meeting made clear, was an application that was out of date, out of sync with the latest policies, with the National Planning Framework 4, and not in-keeping, particularly for a National Park, in these times of biodiversity crisis.

The observation expressed during the meeting, was that new policy around this represents a “different world”, “ the game has changed” and that fine-tuning of the application, which was a planning application in principle, could not be left to a later stage. It had to be right now. 

What came across in comments from both the board members and the speakers was that the key issue too was one of scale.

LLTNPA board member Professor Chris Spray for instance, said: "The focus is on the scale of the impact as being totally unacceptable, not just the habitat area lost, also impact of increasing disturbance by cars, people, dogs." The role of the National Park, he noted, was to protect nature during a biodiversity crisis.

Board member Dr Richard Johnson echoed concern over scale, saying, following the site visit earlier that day, “The site to me seemed to be under threat.”

A hydrologist, he also later flagged up concern about flood risk and recommended that the “precautionary principle”.

Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer, the architect of the 154,000 objection petition that made Lomond Banks the most objected to planning application in Scottish history, speaking against the development, also emphasised the issue of scale.

“The developer,” he said, “had a chance to scale down after their failed application in 2018 and they didn’t. That’s why we’re here today. That’s why opposition to the proposal has grown.”

He also pointed out that the mitigation of flood risk could lead to contamination, spoke of risk to the local economy and “economic displacement”, and noted the additional number of cars as not compliant with National Planning Framework 4.

“Scale,” he said, was the key reason to object to the application. “This could all have been avoided. We didn’t need to be discussing this again today. The developers could have scaled back their proposal. They chose not to do so.”

Ian Cowan, a lawyer representing Mr Greer, also spoke, saying  that if the board pass the application they would “expose the park authority to a legal challenge under judicial review”.

Ross Greer arriving at the hearing (Image: Colin Mearns)

A key point being made by Lomond Banks’ representatives was that this was a planning application in principle, and therefore can be subject to change, with areas of development reduced. Steve Callan, Lomond Banks’ planner said: This is a "planning in principle application. What was submitted is a maximum parameters plan... Scale and capacity should not be a reason for refusal”.

But both the report and many of the speakers gave that case short shrift. Among the most fiery objections of the day was delivered by Lynne Somerville of Balloch and Haldane Community, a statutory consultee.

She delivered a stream of objections that barely seemed to stop over her five-minute session and included that there was no improvement on the original application, an increase in local flood risk, increase in carbon emissions, an impact on the fragile and failing infrastructure, and so on, ending in applause from the public audience.

Among her stand-out lines, regarding the pledge made by Lomond Banks developers to the community: “The Lomond Promise has been written on the back of a cigarette packet.”

Lynne Somerville (Image: Colin Mearns)

There were locals too who spoke in support of the application, one of them being Rev Ian Miller, who said: “I don’t expect to get any [applause] when I finish and I also expect to have lost a few friends."

He described what he called “the myths” that had developed, and said that the first was that “the loch must be saved”. He also, mentioned that the area we are talking about was once a shunting yard.”

Also objecting was Jackie Baille, the MSP for the area, who said: “I am not against development per se and I care passionately about jobs. The question is whether this is the right development in the right place.”

She noted that the application was “considerably better than their last application, but still not good enough”.

READ MORE:

• Flamingo Land plan for Loch Lomond banks rejected at meeting
• Ross Greer offers Flamingo Land olive branch as campaigners enjoy win

Through a survey, she described, she had found that what locals were concerned about was not so much the wildlife and environment but jobs and traffic. She said that the Lomond Promise made to the community by Lomond Banks, saying, “Unfortunately the promises have yet to make it off the paper”.

Many businesses she said had not been engaged with. She added:  “The jobs may come but that collaboration is missing now and that points to the developer's natural approach to working in partnership."

Jackie Baillie after the decision (Image: Colin Mearns)

But the reasons for refusal given by the park report revolved around biodiversity (and the requirement for the developer to deliver net gain) as well as flood risk and tree loss. Many of those speaking also made reference to the Sanford Principle, which protects UK National Parks from over-commercialisation and states that where conservation and economic development cannot be reconciled by skillful management, conservation should come first. 

As board member Ronnie Erskine said: “Who is going to lead in nature restoration and biodiversity enhancement if it’s not a National Park?”

Of course, it doesn't mean that the fight is over, or that the developer might not come back and appeal, or even that it might still be called in by the Scottish Government. Certainly, Lomond Banks, in their statement, suggested that they were not giving up. 

Jim Paterson, Development Director for Lomond Banks, said: “We believe we have a really strong case as this is a responsible investment that will create many opportunities for the area and Scotland as a whole. We remain fully committed to the process.”

This also does not mean that the site should not be developed in some other way. There are already other options being mooted.

Among those celebrating, and also most impacted by the decision, are the Balloch and Haldane Community Council, who are behind a new community development trust that aims to develop parts of the site.

Campaigners celebrate (Image: Colin Mearns)

“We congratulate the board members of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) for their decision today in rejecting the planning application submitted by Flamingo Land/Lomond Banks. This sound judgment has further strengthened the LLTNPA’s Director of Place’s recommendation for refusal and is a further demonstration of the Park's commitment to their statutory aims.

“Eight years of campaigning, not just locally but across the length and breadth of Scotland has resulted in this successful outcome. We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has steadfastly supported the campaign.

“In light of this momentous decision, we trust that Scottish Enterprise will remove the shackles of the Exclusivity Agreement signed with Flamingo Land/Lomond Banks which has prevented the community of Balloch from exercising their rights under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

“BHCC looks forward to working with both LLTNPA and Scottish Enterprise to realise the true potential of the land at Loch Lomond and to developing an alternative vision in keeping with our natural and cultural heritage.”