The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17862, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on planning. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button.
15:59
When Loch Lomond and the Trossachs became Scotland’s first national park in 2002, it was after 60 years of campaigning. Generations of Scots wanted to protect its unique geology, history and beauty, and that still applies today. There is, after all, only one Loch Lomond, and we are the custodians of our environment for future generations.
When Sarah Boyack was the Minister for Transport and the Environment, the Parliament passed legislation to create national parks. I spoke in the stage 1 debate. We recognised then that there was no contradiction between protecting the environment and boosting the local economy, but we made it clear that, if there was a conflict, the principle of conserving the park’s natural and cultural heritage came first.
Drawing on those principles, and considering the expert planning opinion on the application, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority made a unanimous decision to reject the bid from Flamingo Land for a resort in Balloch. Flamingo Land appealed the decision, and I have to say that, in all my 25 years in the Parliament, the reporter’s decision to grant the appeal and overrule everyone else was, frankly, extraordinary.
It is not often that an MSP lodges a motion and the Scottish Government caves in before a word has been spoken; I have certainly never experienced that before. Perhaps it was in anticipation of the quality and persuasiveness of the speeches to come that the Scottish National Party Government changed its mind. Perhaps it was because it counted the thousands of emails that were sent to ministers by people from my constituency and across Scotland and realised how angry people were about the proposed development. Perhaps it was because the SNP Government realised that the Scottish Labour motion had the support of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Defeat for the Government was a certainty, so it sought to get ahead of the Parliament.
The Government will of course say that it was none of the above, so let us explore what has changed. Three weeks ago, the Lomond Banks proposal was raised by Ross Greer during topical question time. I, too, asked the minister, Ivan McKee, to call the application in, as did Pam Gosal. In response, he said:
“I have no intention of recalling the appeal”.—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; c 5.]
Two weeks ago, the First Minister also refused to intervene. Yesterday, there was a spectacular U-turn. Now, according to the minister, there are “issues of national significance” that justify the call-in. What are those issues? What has changed during the past two weeks?
Loch Lomond and the Trossachs remains an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is Scotland’s first national park and the jewel in our crown; that has not changed during the past two weeks. The national planning framework 4, which was published in 2023 and voted for by this Parliament, notes problems with flooding across Scotland. Part of the area for development is subject to flooding. That has not changed in the past two weeks.
I would be happy to take an intervention from the minister so that he can explain what has changed. No? I can see that I am not going to get anywhere with that, so let me welcome the SNP’s U-turn and tell members why the application should be called in for ministerial determination. First, the decision being made by a single unelected reporter—no matter how good he might be—is a democratic affront. The national park board, which was appointed by ministers, and some members of which were elected by their local community, was unanimous in its rejection of the application.
The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency—one of the Government’s own expert agencies—recommended rejection because of flooding. The Woodland Trust, the National Trust for Scotland and countless other expert bodies all rejected the application. Ross Greer’s petition of 155,000 people rejected it. My local survey of 3,000 households in Balloch, Jamestown, Tullichewan, Levenvale and Haldane saw 65 per cent of local residents rejecting the application. All that local knowledge and expert opinion surely counts for something. The Scottish Government appointees on the board or the planning officers at the national park should surely be listened to, with their years of experience.
I will give a small local example. I invite the minister and his colleagues to come out and visit on a sunny day at the weekend. If they were to try getting up Loch Lomondside in a car, they would be stuck on the A82 all the way from Milton at the start of my constituency in Dumbarton right up to and beyond the Stoneymollan roundabout, and it would be the same in reverse. There is also the McDonald’s roundabout on the A811, which backs up on to the A82, causing gridlock. If you live locally, as I do, you stay at home or head in the opposite direction if the sun is shining, because the A82 becomes a car park, with traffic at a standstill. Adding 250 to 280 additional cars a day would add to the existing infrastructure problems.
Will Jackie Baillie give way?
I am happy to, if Bob Doris is brief.
As someone who hails from that part of the world, I concur with Jackie Baillie’s point. My mum and dad were in Levenvale until they passed away. We need more people stopping off in Balloch, with its high-quality tourist amenities, but the scale of the Lomond Banks development is beyond what the infrastructure can currently support.
I agree absolutely with Bob Doris. I am not against development at the site, but we need to think carefully about the size and appropriateness of any development in the context of the surrounding environment.
In closing, I ask about the timescale for consideration and which minister will make the decision. It is clear that Ivan McKee has taken a view, and I do not believe that it would be appropriate for him to consider the matter. I note that others in Government—for example, ministers involved with Scottish Enterprise—have taken an interest before, as ministers first instructed Scottish Enterprise to dispose of its assets, including this land, and have been involved in discussions since. I would be grateful for confirmation on those points.
This has been the most controversial planning application in my constituency and, indeed, probably the whole of Scotland. We must ensure that, whatever decision is arrived at, it is fair, transparent and democratically accountable. I hope that ministers will recognise that Loch Lomond is the jewel in Scotland’s crown and act accordingly, because anything less would be an utter travesty.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Lomond Banks planning application for a development at Balloch should be called in for determination by the Scottish Ministers.
16:07
As required by the Scottish ministerial code, all ministers are restricted from commenting publicly on live planning applications, as doing so could potentially prejudice the final decision. Members will therefore appreciate that I am very limited in what I am able to say in the debate. However, I can confirm that the Minister for Public Finance has decided to recall the appeal, as the proposed development raises issues of national significance in view of its potential impact on Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.
I am aware that, on 16 May, an independent reporter issued a notice of intention to allow the appeal and grant planning permission in principle, subject to 49 planning conditions and a legal agreement being reached, including the Lomond promise, with a commitment to community benefits and fair work. The reporter’s notice-of-intention letter is publicly available to view.
I have the greatest respect for the integrity of the planning system, and I am sure that members will agree that we must allow decisions to be made in a fair and transparent way. It is for the planning system to remain objective and to take into account all views on applications so that decisions are well informed.
Will the minister give way?
I am afraid that I am restricting my comments in the debate to my prepared remarks, given that the matter concerns a live planning application.
It remains the case that all planning applications and appeals should be determined in accordance with the development plan for the area affected, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There have been significant reforms to the Scottish planning system in recent years. The statutory development plan includes the national planning framework 4 and the relevant local development plan. The primary responsibility for determining planning applications rests with the relevant local authority in the first instance.
I remind members that appeals have an important role to play in our system, too, and ministers use their powers to call in applications and appeals very sparingly. As a matter of law, all planning applications must be determined on the planning merits of the case, taking full account of all submissions that are made by parties involved in the case, including representations from members of the local community.
Once again, I recognise that members have spent a great deal of time considering the appeal and that their views are strongly held. It is, in fact, usual for the planning system to balance competing interests, and it is important that the Parliament recognises that the system is designed to deal with a wide range of views and issues in an objective manner.
Members will appreciate that, as the planning appeal remains live, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further so as not to prejudice the decision-making process and to maintain the integrity of the planning system. With that, I conclude.
I move amendment S6M-17862.1, to insert at end:
“, and that any subsequent decision on the planning application should be made in a fair and impartial way that takes into account all relevant legal requirements and maintains the integrity of the planning process.”
16:10
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—
Can we have Mr Greer’s microphone on, please?
I hear that this desk is not working, Deputy Presiding Officer. If you give me a second, I will move.
We have a little bit of time in hand, so I can give you the time back.
I will try again. Grand.
I thank Jackie Baillie for giving us the opportunity to have this debate and for forcing the move to recall this afternoon.
For a decade, now, many of us have been involved in the campaign to save Loch Lomond from Flamingo Land, and we had won at every step of the way until three weeks ago, when the reporter made the recommendation that the application should go ahead. At that point, we were told that it was over. I thank everyone who has proved the doubters wrong and who has spent the past three weeks campaigning relentlessly to put pressure on the Government and to force the recall decision. It was a community campaign, but it went national.
For the 2019 Flamingo Land application, we lodged 60,000 objections. For the 2024 application, we lodged 155,000 objections. In the past three weeks alone, more than 51,000 people have emailed the planning minister, demanding that he recall the application. That demonstrates the strength of feeling not just in the local community, but across Scotland. We have all fought so hard for that because we know how special Loch Lomond is. It is world famous for a reason, and Balloch is the gateway to the loch, so I am genuinely glad that ministers have listened.
There are two reasons why the application should have been recalled and why it is right that ministers have made that decision: it is a significant application in a national park, and it would set a precedent for the whole planning system in the interpretation of NPF4. It is significant precisely because Balloch is the gateway to our national park, and it is not just a local issue—it is a major development, and it was unanimously rejected by the national park’s board. It is unquestionably in the public interest that ministers make the final decision.
However, it also points to a wider issue. Any appeal on a major development within our national parks should go straight to ministers—it should not go through a reporter. Any major development in an area of Scotland that we, as the Parliament, have designated as being of national significance should ultimately be decided on by ministers.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I do not have time at this point, but I would be happy to take the member’s intervention in closing.
Why is it a major development? We are talking about two hotels, a water park, a monorail, 372 parking spaces, 100 lodges, restaurants, shops, service buildings and more. The developer’s own impact assessment showed that there would be more than 250 additional car journeys per hour on local roads at peak times. Those local roads are already gridlocked the second that there is a crack of sunshine between the clouds, and, as Jackie Baillie highlighted, the developer was proposing only two minor roundabout adaptations to compensate for that.
The minister said that the planning process needs to “balance competing interests”, but I point out that the aims of our national parks are set out in law, including the Sandford principle that greater weight must be given to the protection of natural heritage over other aims, including economic benefit. I think that the economic benefits of the application are dubious at best, but they are cancelled out by the environmental and community harms that the application itself concedes would happen. Those harms are well evidenced by the Woodland Trust and by the national park’s own planning team in particular. The loss of ancient woodland, in and of itself, should have resulted automatically in the reporter dismissing the appeal.
The law is absolutely clear when aims conflict, which is the key reason why the national park board rejected the application, and it is to the credit of all who have campaigned locally and nationally over the past decade—and, in particular, over the past three weeks—that we have forced the decision. I also thank ministers for the change in their decision.
Flamingo Land’s application is of national significance because of the scale of the proposed development, the damage that it would do and its location, but also because of the precedent that it would set for our whole planning system. I look forward to setting out in detail the decade’s-worth of evidence against the mega resort. I am sure that, when ministers see the damage that it would do, they will reject the application, end the sorry saga and, once and for all, save Loch Lomond from the greed of the developer.
I move amendment S6M-17862.2, to insert at end:
“; believes that the significant public interest in this application and its location within a national park make it a matter of national interest, and asks that ministers assess the application’s compatibility with National Planning Framework 4, as approved by the Parliament in 2023, and with the statutory aims of the national park.”
We move to the open debate. I advise the chamber that, unusually, we have a little bit of time in hand, so members should get time back for brief interventions.
16:15
I am pleased to open such an important debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I thank Jackie Baillie for bringing this important issue to the chamber. I am speaking on behalf of the residents and businesses of Balloch and the surrounding areas, in my West Scotland region, on the Lomond Banks development, which is commonly known as Flamingo Land. I make it clear that I am not against development. If anything, I am very much for investment and job creation. However, development has to be in the right place and must take local residents and businesses into consideration. It certainly cannot come at the cost of ruining our beautiful and world-famous Loch Lomond.
Although I am pleased that the SNP Government has U-turned on the decision, one must wonder why it happened at the 11th hour. Could it be that the Scottish Conservatives joined forces with Opposition parties, resulting in a defeat for the SNP Government, or have the mailboxes of SNP MSPs and ministers been filled with a tsunami of emails from very unhappy locals? Like Jackie Baillie, I would like to give the minister an opportunity to respond. The minister has said that he cannot speak about live planning applications, but it would be great to hear why, at last, at the 11th hour, you have decided to change your mind.
Through the chair, Ms Gosal.
I am sorry.
Although I welcome the decision, it is important to know why it was made.
Flamingo Land’s development has been unpopular since day 1 and has received more than 150,000 objections. It was unanimously turned down by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, and it was opposed by expert organisations such as SEPA, the National Trust for Scotland, the Woodland Trust and Ramblers Scotland, yet it somehow managed to receive the Government’s approval.
Two weeks ago, I attended a vocal meeting of around 200 residents, which was organised by the Balloch and Haldane community council. Residents were very angry and outraged, more so because they felt that their voices had not been heard. Their submissions and protests have fallen on deaf ears in the Scottish Government. The Government is making decisions while sitting in Edinburgh, miles away from where the impact of Flamingo Land would be felt. Residents are feeling ignored and powerless. Where is the democracy in that?
Let us mention some of the factors that would be at play. The developer’s job creation figures listed 80 full-time and 120 seasonal part-time jobs, which would be minimum-wage jobs with no real prospects of career advancement or opportunities for growth. The site’s natural sensitivity makes development environmentally unacceptable. Approving the Lomond Banks development would push future flood mitigation costs on to public agencies and would normalise developers’ intrusion into protected landscapes.
Last but not least, let us not forget about the congestion that would be caused on the A82. Just imagine the A82 being jammed on a summer’s day, or the problems if somebody was drowning in Loch Lomond. I spoke with volunteers from the Loch Lomond Rescue Boat organisation who came to Parliament last week. They are not a blue-light service, and they highlighted the fact that the increased traffic would cause delays if they were called to provide help. That is not a scenario—it is the reality, and it is just one example of many.
The SNP has made a habit of intervening in planning applications. The Scottish Conservatives have obtained figures showing that, following 151 planning application appeals in 2022-23, 80 decisions, or 53 per cent, were overturned. Clearly, we know that the Scottish Government can step in, and it has done so in many other controversial decisions.
This is the fourth time that I have stood in the chamber to speak about this issue. I truly hope that it will be the last, but that might just be wishful thinking. It is our duty to protect the area for future generations. I hope that the Scottish Government has now learned its lesson when it comes to listening to the voices of communities.
16:20
The proposed development at Loch Lomond has definitely filled my inbox more than any other planning issue over the years. My office has dubbed it the “Loch Lomond monster” in the past couple of weeks, such is the great strength of feeling around it.
This long-standing saga is symptomatic of a much wider issue: how planning decisions are made in Scotland; how they are consulted on; how objections are dealt with; how long decisions take; and whether we need a wider root-and-branch review of the entire planning regime—which, incidentally, we do.
I do not want to linger on the very well-rehearsed arguments for and against the development. A lot has already been said about that and, dare I say it, there has been a fair amount of political opportunism. There seems to be a very live competition about who is taking credit for bringing the topic to the chamber the most times.
However, on the substance of the debate, there are people who are in favour of the development, and I think that it is fair to comment on that. Perhaps those are the 35 per cent of people who responded to Jackie Baillie’s survey who believe that the development will deliver jobs and investment.
There are claims—and they are claims—that the development will lead to up to £40 million of investment across the west of Scotland, provide up to 200 new jobs and bring around £3.4 million to the local economy. Job creation or economic growth in the west of Scotland is not to be sniffed at, and the reporter seemed to agree.
However, we cannot ignore the great number of those who were opposed to the development. They had valid concerns about road capacity on the A82 and environmental concerns about the effect on wildlife and ancient woodland. They also had many suspicions about the true economic or employment value of the whole project.
The minister is right to say that this is a matter of national significance, particularly given the polarisation of views, although the nature and location of the development are important, too. I believe that, in this instance, calling in the application is probably the right thing to do. My natural instinct is to keep ministers as far away from planning decisions as we can, but, nonetheless, escalating such decisions is an appropriate part of the planning process.
I have a bit of a problem with today’s debate, because the Government’s 11th-hour announcement that it will call in the application is quite an embarrassing one. The Government was staring down the barrel of a defeat at decision time today and the minister has caved accordingly.
Initial proposals for the development were brought back on 1 January 2018. Since then, they have been withdrawn, rejected, appealed, approved and again face potential defeat. The problem with that uncertainty is that it is not fair on either local residents or the developer, which I am surprised did not walk away from the project ages ago.
I will explain what I am nervous about. If every proposed major development in Scotland results in a seven-year-long battle, which has to end in a debate in its national Parliament, good luck in attracting any future investment. For future investment to happen, two things must happen in parallel. First, local communities must be confident that planning, consultation and appeals processes are truly fit for purpose—and we all know that many do not believe that to be the case. Secondly, future investors must know that Scotland is open for business and that applications will be treated fairly and squarely, free from rhetoric and falsehoods.
This long, drawn-out saga has damaged confidence in investing in our tourism sector just as much as it has damaged confidence in our current planning processes.
I am uncomfortable with leaving a decision such as this to the Government, which is bereft of consistency when it comes to overturning local decisions. I am just as uncomfortable with leaving a major multimillion-pound investment decision to sit on the desks of ministers when they already have a lengthy backlog of decisions to make, including, for example, on the Loch Long salmon farm. Those are decisions that ministers deem are far too controversial to go ahead with.
My one ask of ministers today, which is perhaps naive in an election year, is simply this: please do not let politics get in the way of sensible evidence-based decision making in making this decision. The Scottish Government will have to carry the can, and it will have to own any decision that it makes. I wish the Government good luck—it is going to need it.
We move to the open debate.
16:25
The Flamingo Land development clearly resonates across the country as a national concern, and the Scottish Government only just seems to have realised that. Like other members, I have had many emails objecting to the proposed huge theme park. There is widespread public dismay at the prospect of a theme park on the shores of one of Scotland’s national treasures and in an area of great beauty and a national park that the Parliament fought for.
The application is no ordinary one, and it is a pretence to suggest otherwise. Whether people are for or against it, it is clear that it will restrict full access to activities for people who visit Loch Lomond for the day. As Ross Greer said, the scale of the project is the most important consideration, against the backdrop of something that the country loves. That is the primary reason why the Government should have paid more attention to the issue—there is a lot to lose. According to a poll of Radio Times readers, Loch Lomond is the sixth-greatest natural wonder in Britain—and I can see that Jackie Baillie agrees with that.
It is questionable whether the proposal should have been given the go-ahead by the Scottish Government’s reporter after the plans were unanimously rejected by the national park board and opposed by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the National Trust for Scotland, the Woodland Trust and members of the local community. That the proposal met the planning criteria in the first place is questionable. Stuart Pearce, the director of place for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority said that it created an “unacceptable risk” of flooding of the River Leven. Why was that ignored? More than 178,000 people signed a petition against the project. Of course, under planning law, those people have no right of appeal.
The scale of the objections should have told the reporter how controversial the development is. The objections also demonstrate that the decision needs to be properly justified, rather than, as has happened, leaving it open to question whether it is in fact a commercial one and not a planning one.
A single person was, perfectly lawfully, able to overturn all those objections from respected organisations, and in particular the national park board, as well as a large public petition. That begs a question about planning law. I think that it would have been perfectly competent to have a planning inquiry instead of a single decision maker, and that would have been more transparent. A public inquiry would have told us what the primary considerations were in coming to any conclusion. Now that the Government has called in the application, it has an opportunity to make the final decision more transparent and to show the public that it has listened to all the voices that have objected to what is, in my opinion, a dreadful proposal.
I had a look at Flamingo Land in North Yorkshire. Last year, a survey found that people thought that it was quite a disappointing theme park. If people turn up on the day, a family ticket for two adults and two children is £224. This is just my guess, but I suggest that, if the proposal gets the go-ahead, because the theme park will be in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, the charge will be more than £224. Some reviews of the North Yorkshire park on Tripadvisor from May this year read quite grimly. Many people say that the park is overpriced and in need of upgrading—of course, it is a bit older—and, apparently, the animals look “tired” and “bored”. That made me laugh a bit.
There is a lot to think about. It might be appropriate for the development to be placed somewhere else rather than next to a national treasure.
It is clear that most people reject such a theme park being developed on the shores of Scotland’s best-known and most iconic loch. I realise that the issue is not only whether a majority is for or against the development. If the Government grants consent after bringing it in, it must show the public that it has fairly and transparently looked at the criteria for the application, which I look forward to reading.
16:30
In this short debate, I will give voice to many of my constituents who have raised concerns over the reporter’s decision on the Lomond Banks application. I do not represent the Balloch area, but my Maryhill and Springburn constituents who have contacted me want to ensure that their voices are also heard. They see the potential development at Balloch as nationally significant, and I agree.
Along with many others, my constituents have concerns about the proposed development’s scale, the impact of potential flooding, the loss of ancient woodland, traffic and the wider impact on the local area. They are right to have concerns, but they do not believe that the report has adequately addressed them. Having read the 80-page document issued by the reporter—it took some going, let me tell you—after he arrived at his decision, I think that it is fair to say that, although it is detailed, it is not drafted to make it easy for interested parties to consider its findings in a speedy and accessible fashion. I know that the findings need to be detailed, but they also need to be accessible and straightforward for readers, who are not necessarily always planning professionals or experts. Ensuring confidence that a robust decision has been arrived at transparently is important for the integrity of any planning system, and it is reasonable to say that confidence is quite low among many.
Given the clear national interest and the substantial widespread concerns, the Scottish Government is correct to call in the plans. Doing so is an important check and balance in the system, and it is required in this instance.
Another group of people who have reached out to me and other parliamentarians—this is really quite important—is the community around Balloch. There appears to be a complete disconnect between many members of that community and the developers. Community buy-in is hugely important, but it appears to be missing, which is a significant weakness for our national park, as well as the developer.
I was born and brought up in the Vale of Leven, which is only a stone’s throw from Balloch, so I am particularly disappointed at the lack of buy-in. In his findings, the reporter said:
“The planning authority’s reasons for refusal raise no objections to the principle of developing the appeal site for the types of development that are proposed, and the report to the planning authority’s Board advised its members that the proposed development, both within the areas that have been allocated for development in the LDP and elsewhere, is supported by the LDP.”
That is important. I see from the national park website that the new local development plan is being developed. I hope that that will involve meaningful strategic community consultation.
It would perhaps be far better to allow the new local development plan process to run its course before taking a decision on a new development of such significant scale. The reporter noted that there were no significant objections from the community when the LDP was first drafted, but it was drafted to cover 2017 to 2021, and consultation started long before 2017. A decade had probably passed before the community was properly consulted on the matter. Asking a community whether it is okay to expand tourism through the development of a high-quality amenity is very different from proposing a development of such sheer scale.
I will raise two specific concerns. First, my reading of the 80-page document is that the reporter appears to be confident about active travel infrastructure. Yes, there would be a monorail close to Balloch train station, but we all know that people would bring cars and use Lomond Banks as a gateway to the Highlands, and the monorail would not take visitors to Luss, Arrochar or Inveraray.
Secondly, much has been made of the destruction of ancient woodland, and I am genuinely unclear as to whether those concerns have been appropriately addressed. The developer has taken control of Drumkinnon wood, which is not part of the proposed development but beside it, and I am concerned that it could be used for compensation and enhancement when woodland and biodiversity are lost elsewhere, if I have captured the report’s findings accurately. I am bemused as to how not developing on ancient woodland can be considered to be compensation and enhancement—surely that is just the status quo.
We need to consider whether the current proposals are in Balloch’s interest or the national interest.
16:35
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I go back to an interesting question that was posed in the previous debate. Yet again, it rests with Opposition parties to bring really important current questions to the chamber so that the Government can reach decisions.
In relation to the timetable of what has happened since Labour’s motion was lodged, as Jackie Baillie rightly pointed out, there has been a complete and utter U-turn. As Tom Arthur found in his opening speech, the challenge is that ministers, in their role in making such decisions, potentially bring problems upon themselves.
I want to pick up on a number of issues. First, I absolutely agree with Bob Doris on the accessibility of published reports on decisions within the planning framework, not just at reporter level but at other levels. A serious discussion has to take place on the accessibility and transparency of our planning system, so that people who are directly affected can, without having to seek expensive advice, understand decisions that are taken. As Pam Gosal rightly said, such people feel that their voices are not being heard.
Does Martin Whitfield share my reflection that, in a debate in which people have questioned whether the planning system gives confidence to investors and, at the same time, have said that it does not provide confidence to communities, one ends up asking who the planning system is for? It does not seem to be for anyone. Does he agree with that sentiment?
Perhaps the planning system is for the Scottish Government rather than for any of the parties that Daniel Johnson mentioned.
I will comment on section 46(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the ministerial statement that was made in 2023. Ministers can call in applications when they consider that important issues are at stake that should be determined by them. Interestingly, in this case, the Minister for Public Finance stated:
“I have decided to recall the Lomond Banks appeal”—
the Flamingo Land appeal—
“as the proposed development raises issues of national significance in view of its potential impact on Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park”.
However, previously, the minister said that there were some “technical planning issues” and that there should be an “objective planning judgment”. The Scottish Government has to address the point that those are two contradictory statements. If the situation has changed since the initial statement was made, what has changed that has made the issue of national importance? I do not doubt that the issue is of national importance, as a lot of members have said, but that point needs to be picked up.
We need to remember that reporters are appointed by the Scottish Government—a reporter has looked at the issue—and that a Scottish Government minister, who was appointed by the First Minister, will now have to take the decision. Given the duplicity of that situation, there is a danger that people outside the Parliament will wonder whether a fair and transparent decision will be made.
In closing, I ask the minister a pragmatic question not about this individual proposal but about generic decisions that are taken by ministers when applications are called in: what test do ministers apply?
Before I call David Torrance, I note that we still have a little time in hand.
16:39
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate on planning and to respond to the motion on the Lomond Banks development at Balloch. The proposal from Flamingo Land Ltd would undoubtedly bring a significant leisure and tourism development to Balloch but, although investment and tourism are always welcome, we have to ask ourselves what kind of development we want in our national parks and what we are willing to sacrifice in the process. Scotland’s planning system must balance development and investment with our commitments to leadership on the climate, biodiversity and the integrity of our natural environment.
Loch Lomond, which is the largest inland stretch of water in Great Britain by surface area, has long held a cherished place in the heart of Scotland’s natural and cultural heritage, and nowhere can that be seen more than in the loch’s immortalisation in the traditional Scottish ballad “The Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomond”—a poignant song that has become a proud symbol of Scottish identity worldwide.
The loch’s natural beauty is unparalleled. With more than 30 islands dotting its vast expanse and the majestic Ben Lomond rising from its eastern shore, the scenery captivates visitors all year round. Rich woodlands, tranquil waters and diverse wildlife create a haven for outdoor enthusiasts, nature lovers and artists. However, Loch Lomond’s importance goes beyond tourism and natural splendour. It embodies Scotland’s spirit: resilient, welcoming and proud.
It is fair to say that the proposed Lomond Banks development by Flamingo Land Ltd has drawn considerable public attention since the application was first submitted. Eliciting a record 155,000 objections that raised significant and wide-reaching concerns, it ignited a wave of concern that extends far beyond Scotland’s shores. Tens of thousands have spoken out—locals and environmentalists alike—all driven by a deep love for one of the most iconic landscapes in the world. Their voices all echoed the shared truth that Loch Lomond is much more than just a place; it is a symbol of natural beauty, heritage and national pride. This passionate response shows just how deeply people care and why the area must be safeguarded for future generations.
Although my constituency sits many miles from the banks of Loch Lomond, the response there has been just as ardent. I have received countless emails from constituents, which universally express outrage at and condemnation of the proposals. I strongly believe that the proposed development would be an overdevelopment of the site that would have a disproportionate impact on the landscape and the environment. There could be a sympathetic planning application that would lead to the restoration of the grade A-listed Woodbank house, which is a central feature of the site that is on the buildings at risk register, in addition to the reuse of other listed buildings on the site, but I do not believe that this is the application to do that.
I very much welcome yesterday’s announcement confirming that the appeal regarding the Lomond Banks proposal has been recalled by the Scottish ministers. It is our duty not merely to weigh the merits of the planning application in isolation but to consider its wider consequences for the natural world, future generations and Scotland’s national identity. It is vital that our planning system earns and keeps the public’s trust. People need to know that their views matter, that environmental concerns are being heard and that planning decisions are always fair, open and unbiased. Recalling the appeal is about ensuring exactly that.
The escalation to ministers for thorough reassessment will allow fresh consideration of environmental safeguards, flood risk management, infrastructure capacity and community sentiment. Their engagement with statutory bodies, including SEPA, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority and local authorities, will ensure that every technical and local concern is rigorously evaluated.
We are here to support responsible development, we believe in sustainable tourism and we stand for a planning system that is built on fairness, justice and long-term care for our country. Recalling the Lomond Banks appeal reflects those values, and it shows that Scotland is serious about protecting our most iconic places and making the planning system work for people and nature.
We move to the winding-up speeches.
16:43
I said in my opening speech that one of the reasons why it was right to recall the application is the precedent that it sets for the whole planning system. I want to elaborate on that, because it is one of the key issues that ministers now need to consider.
The national park board cited two key grounds for refusal of the application: flood risk and net loss of nature and biodiversity. The protections in relation to both of those grounds were strengthened by this Parliament in NPF4 just two years ago, and the reporter’s interpretation is simply not what the Parliament thought that it was voting for. On flood protection, if the reporter’s interpretation was applied nationally as the precedent, it would in effect exempt vast amounts of land from those protections. That was not the Parliament’s intention, and it was certainly not the national park’s understanding of that part of the national planning framework.
NPF4 includes specific exemptions from flood protections for previously developed land, and exemptions in planning are narrow by default. The interpretation is the broadest possible interpretation of that particular exemption, and the reason is that part of the site had a railway line on it more than 40 years ago. As anyone who has been there knows—any local will certainly know this—it has been a park for decades. It is not developed land, and it is not land that we intended to exempt from the flood protections when the four specific exemptions were included in NPF4.
As part of the process, ministers will need to clarify how the exemptions from the flood protection provisions in the planning framework are to be used. Frankly, any field that has had a bus stop in it at any point in the past century could essentially have no protections from flooding.
On nature, we simply cannot compensate for the loss of ancient woodland. However, as Bob Doris laid out, the reporter granted the application on the basis that it is possible, at Drumkinnon wood, to compensate for the loss of ancient woodland elsewhere. The Woodland Trust, in both its written submission and its contribution to the hearing, spelled out in incredible detail why we simply cannot do that. By the very nature of ancient woodland, we cannot, for example, compensate for it with new plantings.
I ask ministers to ensure that, as part of their consideration of the application, they are inclusive of all the parties that have been involved in the process up to now. That is not something that the reporter did. The reporter was within their rights to look purely at written submissions and to do an individual or sole private site visit. However, they did not even speak to the national park’s expert planning officers. I think that they badly misunderstood the incredibly valuable contribution that that expert team made, and I urge ministers to engage with that team in particular.
The community needs to be heard, too. It has attempted to develop alternatives for various parts of the site over the past decade, but it has essentially been locked out because Flamingo Land has an exclusive agreement with Scottish Enterprise for the whole site, apart from the parts that it already owns. I ask ministers to outline the process that they will take as soon as possible in order to give the community confidence.
It is not the case that we want to see no development whatsoever on the site. There should absolutely be redevelopment at Woodbank house, which is a grade A listed building, as David Torrance mentioned. It was only at the appeal stage, in Flamingo Land’s written submission to the reporter, that we found out that redevelopment of Woodbank house was to be the last part of a 10-year construction process. Flamingo Land did not disclose that to the community or, as far as we are aware, to the national park authority when the application was initially considered. Members may call me cynical but, given the developer’s behaviour so far, I sincerely doubt that it will ever get round to the redevelopment of Woodbank house, because it is not the part of the site that it would profit from the most. However, we want to see development at that particular part of the site.
On the other hand, there is simply no way to develop at scale on the west riverside. It is a flood plain and the ground is contaminated. Any work that could be done to compensate for the flood risk would resurface the contaminants, which are only 25cm below the surface, as Flamingo Land confirmed in its impact assessment.
The point about developing on some parts of the site but not all of it relates to Bob Doris’s issue with the local development plan and how out of date it is. The site should never have been packaged together as a single site for development. It is between two and five separate sites, which should have been considered individually, with different invitations being made to developers.
Before I close, I will touch on the economic issues that have been raised. We are not talking about an economic opportunity for the area; it is an opportunity for a private developer to extract wealth from the local area. The existing businesses in the area are overwhelmingly small businesses owned by local residents who reinvest their profits in the area. As Flamingo Land’s economic impact assessments have shown over the past decade, it would put many of those businesses out of business. That would cost local jobs, and their profits would disappear from the community.
I am really proud of the save Loch Lomond campaign and everything that we have done to prevent Flamingo Land over the past decade. It has tried to drag things out and exhaust us, using its deep pockets, but the community has never given up. The stakes are simply too high. I ask ministers to listen to the people across the country, but especially the people in Balloch, who are demanding that they save Loch Lomond and end this saga.
I call Craig Hoy. We have a little time in hand, so you have a very generous four minutes, Mr Hoy.
16:49
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many residents of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs will have been watching this debate closely and with interest, albeit that it was usurped at the 11th hour by Ivan McKee yesterday. Mr McKee is not in the chamber today, but I see that the Minister for Employment and Investment is. I am used to looking over at the SNP front bench and seeing ministers looking embarrassed. Today, I saw ministers looking chastened, and rightly so, because they were going against the huge body of opinion, of residents and others, who had expressed that this was the wrong development in the wrong place.
Scotland’s first national park, in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, provides a wealth of space for outdoor pursuits and enjoyment of nature. It contributes hugely to Scotland’s tourist economy. At the same time, it is home to around 15,000 people, many of whom live and work within the national park. I pay testament to them and I thank Jackie Baillie for securing this debate, because it gives us an opportunity to commend them for their efforts. I also commend my colleague Pam Gosal, not only for her speech but for the work that she has done to oppose the project. Having worked with her for the past four years, I understand that it is better to be on the same side as her than to be against her, and I am glad that ministers have now seen that as well.
Although the plans to establish a Flamingo Land resort in the national park promised to bring some benefits such as job creation and some economic activity and growth, there have also been—quite rightly—numerous significant concerns, and they cannot and should not be ignored by ministers or the planning system. I am minded to recount that a representative of the Balloch and Haldane community council said that the proposals
“go against the very will of the people who live in the area.”
She also indicated that the development is unwanted and that it would create a “living hell” for locals. That was a living hell that ministers were willing to overlook right up to the point at which it was obvious that the Parliament was going to defeat them.
However, it was not only local residents who were against the development. As we have heard, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority said that the plans created an unacceptable risk of flooding and the Government’s environment agency, SEPA, warned that there were concerns about the irreversible loss of woodland. As members have mentioned, the national park authority rejected the proposals. More than 150,000 people lodged objections to them, warning that the entire vista of Loch Lomond would be negatively affected, which would in turn impact the scenery and increase traffic and could have the perverse effect of deterring environmentally friendly tourism. Those are all legitimate and reasonable concerns that the Government was apparently ready to set aside to allow the appeal to go ahead.
I recognise that it is vital that we develop the local economy, but we should also look at the figures. In 2022, visitor and tourism businesses in the national park generated nearly £450 million for the local economy. That is already a significant sum. The Government must ensure, for both this project and future ones, that it does not undermine such tourism numbers by developing projects that will deliver negative economic repercussions.
Does Craig Hoy agree that it is troubling that we have a system whereby one person can overturn a democratic decision such as the one that was taken here or ones that are taken in councils, especially against such a weight of public opinion?
Absolutely. That speaks to the work that I and colleagues have been doing in relation to the planning system, particularly in relation to large-scale energy development, where the voices of local people are often crowded out.
Until yesterday, it looked as if the Scottish Government’s reporter was going to go against the will of local people and the concerns of experts and approve the plans. It is welcome that common sense has prevailed, but I echo Jackie Baillie and Pam Gosal in wondering what on earth it was that changed in ministers’ heads—other than that they were about to be defeated in the chamber, as they will be in the next five or 10 minutes.
I am concerned that the Government is following a worrying pattern of ignoring the concerns of those who would be directly impacted by large-scale planning proposals, in pursuit of what can at times be read as agenda-backed plans. I welcome the fact that Ross Greer has been supportive of the efforts to campaign against the proposal and has, in many respects, helped to lead that campaign. However, if we listen to the residents in Loch Lomond, we should also listen to residents in the Scottish Borders and the north-east when they oppose large-scale energy developments that the Government insists it must push through in order to meet its net zero and energy targets.
For example, the Government recently gave consent to plans for the replacement of overhead power lines between Fort Augustus and Skye. Although that will bring greater connectivity, the opposition of local people appears to have been ignored, as were the objections from Highland Council.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I do not have time.
Mr Hoy must conclude.
I welcome the fact that, in the case of the Galloway national park proposal, local opposition was taken on board, but ministers must ask why there was such a crucial failure in the consultation process, which lacked transparency and left many people in Dumfries and Galloway and Ayrshire in the dark and concerned about the proposal, which I am glad to say was rejected last week.
If the SNP learns anything from those examples, it ought to be that listening to local people—those who will be directly affected by developments—must now form a more intrinsic and influential part of the planning process.
On that basis, I am glad that the Government has called in the Flamingo Land application, but it must now reject the proposals. It must ensure that it brings common sense to the planning process; listens to the concerns of local people, not only in this case but in others; and stops unwanted plans going ahead in Scotland’s communities today.
I call Tom Arthur. You have a generous five minutes, minister.
16:56
Presiding Officer, you will appreciate the need for me to keep my remarks brief, given that the motion that we are debating relates to a live planning case and in view of the need to respect the ministerial code and to avoid prejudicing future planning decisions.
The views that have been expressed today indicate that—
Will the minister take an intervention on a factual point?
I am afraid that I will not. I set out my position in my opening remarks.
The views that have been expressed today indicate that there are strong views on the proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, planning is, by its nature, something that can attract strong views and in relation to which competing considerations must be balanced. I am fully aware that members across the chamber will regularly receive correspondence from constituents about planning cases and that the integrity of our planning system is of great importance to us all.
That is why it is vital that we maintain the integrity of our planning system by ensuring that decisions are taken in accordance with our policy and legislative frameworks, in the proper way. I have no doubt that members will note the decision by the Minister for Public Finance to recall the appeal, and I trust that members will now allow the minister the time and the space that he requires to make an informed and robust decision.
The Scottish ministers remain committed to the role and purpose of national parks in Scotland. Our national parks in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and the Cairngorms bring significant economic, social and environmental benefits to their local areas and the communities within them.
However, I cannot comment further on the matter in the context of a live planning appeal.
I call Daniel Johnson to wind up the debate.
16:57
Presiding Officer, I take it that I have a generous 12 minutes, thanks to the generosity of the minister.
In a sense, what we have just heard says it all. We have had no commentary on what has changed or why what has happened has happened, or on why, just two weeks ago, the planning minister said that the application would not be called in, that there was nothing to see here and that the development was going to go ahead, yet now it is not. There was not even the suggestion of a commentary on the SNP’s own amendment—the minister did not mention it once.
So, I will say only this. I do not know about you, Presiding Officer, but, to me, “SNP planning policy” sounds like an oxymoron right now. We should not be surprised, because it comes from a Government that has brought us a few such phrases, including, “Ferries delivered on time and on budget”, “NHS recovery plan”, “Government transparency and data retention”, and “Delivering a national care service”. My current favourite phrase, which, if reports in the newspapers are to be believed, follows secretive meetings on Monday night and plots, is “John Swinney’s continued and stable leadership of the SNP”. That is a self-contradictory statement.
The fact of the matter is that the Government’s decision is a panicked U-turn that has been forced on it because of imminent defeat in this Parliament.
Will Daniel Johnson give way?
I am happy to give way to Bob Doris. I was going to be very complimentary about him later on in my speech, so he might want to bear that in mind.
I thank Daniel Johnson for giving way. Crikey—he might want to hold on a minute there.
Does Daniel Johnson not think that he has done a little bit of a disservice to the communities and campaigners who have fought against the application by overly politicising the issue? I am keen to hear from Daniel Johnson about the material considerations that will give the leverage for the matter to be dismissed by the Scottish Government and for the development not to proceed. I think that that is better than politicking.
This is not politicking. If Bob Doris does not want to listen to me, maybe he should listen to one of his own esteemed colleagues:
“This issue has been handled in the most cack handed way possible by the Scottish government and is seriously damaging its credibility.”
Those are not my words, but the words of Alex Neil—a former Scottish National Party minister, who was responsible for planning for the Scottish Government. If he is saying that, perhaps we need to consider whether this has been cack-handed and has damaged the Government’s credibility.
Let us take a moment and take a step back, because we do not need to be planning experts or intimately aware of the ins and outs of planning to wonder whether this is the right thing to do. This is Loch Lomond—a loch so bonnie that they created a song for it, and the place where we decided to create our first national park, in 2002. As to the thought that this is the place to create a theme park, Flamingo Land, with a private zoo operator and theme park operator, where they would create two hotels, 100 lodges and more than 300 parking places, in a national park designed to protect an area’s natural heritage and beauty—come on. We do not need to think about that for too long to realise that there are things to see here, which is why we have heard many contributions setting out the length of time that this has taken and the saga that this has been, and asking how on earth we have got here.
My colleague Jackie Baillie set out in some detail the issues around flooding and road capacity. Believe me, you do not need to be local to know about the issues around the local roads. Many of us will have been stuck in traffic jams and gridlocks around Loch Lomond. The thought that we could install 100 additional lodges and the additional road requirement without batting an eyelid, with a couple of changes to a roundabout, is a nonsense. Then there is the loss of natural habitats and forests. This simply is not credible, and it should not have got this far before it was called into question.
The thought that a reporter—one person—can overturn a decision that was made unanimously by the park authority is also not credible. A number of contributors made that point.
I also note that the reporter was appointed by the Scottish Government, which has now taken in this decision. The approach taken by the Scottish Government in tonight’s debate may raise far more questions for people watching than it has in any way answered.
Martin Whitfield is quite right. Planning decisions are important, and the minister has stood up and said that it is important that they have integrity and transparency—I believe that those are the words that he used. However, where is the transparency in what has just happened? What is the difference—
Will the member give way?
I will complete this point.
What has changed in the past two weeks? To repeat the point that my friend raised earlier, what test will the Scottish ministers apply now that they have called it in? Ultimately, who will make the decision? Which minister? Those are vital questions, and their answers would not prejudice the outcome of the decision. Transparency and integrity demand that the Government answer them, but we have had no answer at all from the Scottish Government.
When it comes to planning, transparency and confidence in this Government are completely out the window. There was overwhelming public opposition to a power line upgrade in Dumfries and Galloway, and the reporter suggested that it should not go ahead, because of the damage to the environment—yet this Government overturned that decision. There is no transparency whatsoever in the position that the Scottish Government takes regarding planning.
Finlay Carson raises a good point. The issue is that we have to make some very difficult decisions. Indeed, the years to come will require even more difficult decisions. There is a real tension.
This is where I am going to be complimentary about Bob Doris, as I thought that some of the most interesting points were raised by Jamie Greene and Bob Doris. We need a planning system that maintains community confidence and whose decisions, when they are made, are robust and thorough and are made in a clear and efficient manner. The reality is that, for many communities, the planning system feels like a war of attrition. On the flipside, we need investment. Jamie Greene raised that difficult balance.
Of course, in order to get investment, we need a predictable planning system that produces clear results. This is a case study of a lack of such clarity, which does a disservice to communities and to the investment that we seek in our country. It is a bourach that was created by this Scottish Government, which has had 18 years to provide clarity in a planning system that enables the investment that we need in the future while protecting community interests. However, what we have in front of us—when it comes to both the materiality of the decision and the lack of clarity about why the Government has changed its mind—serves as a case in point about the problems that we have in our planning system overall.
Ross Greer made an excellent contribution both on the technical point and on this: the planning proposal has gone on for years; tens of thousands of people have written; there have been hundreds of thousands of objections; and one reporter has overturned all of that, summing up on highly dubious grounds in his interpretation of what the Parliament had passed.
The Government will vote for our motion today because it got it wrong.
That concludes the debate on planning.
Previous
Medical and Nursing WorkforceNext
Business Motion