Loch Lomond Flamingo Land ruling revealed after 175k people sign petition against 'mega-resort'

Almost 175,000 people had signed the petition against the Lomond Banks development proposed by Yorkshire-based theme park operator Flamingo Land. The resort would have included a monorail, waterpark, two hotels, more than 100 self-catering lodges, restaurants and 372 car parking spaces.

But the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) voted against the plans following a site visit, after more than 100 people gathered at Lomond Parish Church in Balloch on Monday to learn the decision.

A LLTNPA report had recommended permission in principle was rejected, with the planning meeting told the project would pose an “unacceptable risk” regarding flooding.

Dr Heather Reid, convener of LLTNPA board, said the decision had been made “following a thorough, robust and transparent process”.

 “The development would have resulted in larger areas of woodland loss than set out by the applicant, including some areas of ancient woodland, and the proposed compensation falls significantly short of national policy requirements,” she said. “This would not contribute positively to creating nature rich places or restoring local nature networks.

“Finally, it was concluded that the scale of the proposal overall was in conflict with the site’s capacity for development.”

Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer, who led the campaign against the resort, said: “After this defeat, I’m calling on Flamingo Land to drop their plans for good and end this decade-long saga.

“After years of stress and anxiety for local residents, they must commit to no third attempt. Loch Lomond does not need a mega-resort and whatever tweaks they make to these daft plans, they will never go ahead.

“All eyes must now turn to the Scottish Government agency who own most of the site and who granted Flamingo Land an exclusive contract in 2016, renewed in 2020. They must rip up this agreement and end Flamingo Land’s grip on the area.”

Plans for the resort on the banks of Loch Lomond in Balloch, West Dunbartonshire, were first submitted six years ago. The existing plans have been under examination since May 2022, and only 69 people wrote in to support them, a meeting heard.

Overall, 174,946 objections were received – the majority via a Scottish Green Party campaign, with 834 made to the park authority.

Pleas to back the development were made by heritage charity, The Loch Lomond Steamship Company, as well as Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and also by a minister who said poor job prospects caused “misery”.

The proposal was objected to by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), and a submission by ecologists from the Woodlands Trust said established woodland including ancient trees, “cannot be compensated for through new planting”, and would be a “permanent and irreversible loss”.

Stuart Pearce, director of place for the LLTNPA, said the proposal created “unacceptable risk” regarding flooding of the River Leven. The application was recommended to be rejected on three clauses, including the National Park aims and a local development plan.

Jim Paterson, development director for Lomond Banks, said of the outcome: “We are disappointed, but not surprised as we anticipated this decision following the case officer’s earlier recommendation.

“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.”

A report said the development would have a “minor” impact on the economic benefits, which was contested by the developers at a meeting, and Mr Pearce said the aims of the national parks must “override any socio-economic gain”.

The report said: “The impact of the proposed development on woodland, including ancient woodland, and the compensatory proposals offered by the applicant are unacceptable and inadequate. Due to this, the National Park Authority must give priority to the first aim which is to conserve and enhance the natural heritage of the area.”

Fiona Robertson, agent for the applicants, said they were “surprised” the development was deemed to have “minor” economic benefits, and a legally binding document, the Lomond Promise, had been signed to address community concerns including paying the Real Living Wage to employees.

The Lomond Promise was said to include being a “net zero tourist destination”, using sustainable materials and renewable energy to meet targets by 2035, the meeting was told.

Agent on behalf of the applicant, Steve Callan, said: “There is a desire by the applicants to facilitate more train-based travel.”

Supporting the application, Reverend Ian Miller, interim moderator at Lomond Parish Church of Scotland, said opponents had been “duped”, and that he urged for “co-operation” to find a solution.

Mr Miller said: “People around the world have been led to believe this will be a risk to Loch Lomond. Honesty has been in short supply in this debate.

“The area has been described as one of Scotland’s most iconic sights – you’re having a laugh. The area was a shunting ground.”

He said only 10 per cent of households responded to an opportunity and “pain, misery and hopelessness” existed in the region, exacerbated by joblessness.

“My interest is the kids I see walking home might find gainful employment here,” he said. “I’ve lived here 49 years and would not support anything which is detrimental to the community I love. I urge you to be brave, lets co-operate and find answers to approve this.

“If there is any increase in employment, I’ve got to vote for it for their sake.”

Supporter Stewart Gibb, from Helensburgh and District Access Trust, also cited “so much concern about employment” in the area.

He said: “Our worry is we will see further degradation. We know tired and depleted public areas could be made much more attractive.”

James Fraser, from Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs, said: “We strongly support this application and believe it’s a last chance saloon for Balloch.”

Objecting, Lynne Somerville, from Balloch and Haldane Community Council, said the development was “in breach” of multiple policies and that 85% of business were concerned about it, especially in hospitality.

Ms Somerville said: “Together we must explore alternative solutions and usher in economic regeneration sympathetic to local communities and the environment.”

Jim Paterson, development director for Lomond Banks, said: “We are disappointed but not surprised as we anticipated this decision following the case officer’s earlier recommendation.

“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.”