Official Report 984KB pdf
Flamingo Land (Lomond Banks)
To ask the Scottish Government whether the Scottish ministers will call in appeal PPA-002-2021 on the Flamingo Land Lomond Banks resort development. (S6T-02531)
I am aware that a reporter has issued a notice of intention to allow the appeal and grant planning permission in principle, which is subject to 49 planning conditions and a legal agreement being reached and put in place.
As the appeal remains live, members will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the proposal. However, I recognise that many people have a keen interest in the reporter’s intended decision on the planning appeal. Given the very technical planning issues that are raised in this case and the high level of public interest, I consider that it is appropriate that objective planning judgment is applied. For that reason, I do not intend to recall this appeal.
As he would expect, I am incredibly disappointed by the minister’s response, in particular the implication that it would not be appropriate for ministers to get involved. To be absolutely clear, paragraph 3 of schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 specifically gives that power to ministers, not officials. In 2008, the Scottish Government intervened to overturn Aberdeenshire Council’s rejection of Donald Trump’s Menie golf course. It was ministers, not officials, who overturned local democracy in order to help an American millionaire trash a sensitive natural environment.
In this case, the Government’s own environment watchdog, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, has said that the application clearly breaches flood protection rules and does not meet the exceptions that are set out in the national planning framework. That is not to mention the 250 extra cars an hour that it would bring at peak times to already congested roads, such as the A82.
Does the minister accept that the law clearly gives him the power to intervene, and will he do so and reject this mega resort on the basis of the overwhelming expert evidence on the damage that it would do to a world-famous location?
The expert in this case is the reporter, who is tasked with going through the planning regulations as they apply and looking at the evidence in depth. The reporter has issued its notice of intention, which runs to 80 pages. As I said, it contains the 49 conditions that need to be in place before the approval can be given. That is the reality of the situation.
The planning regulations have been considered in this case. The reporter has reached their expert opinion based on the evidence, which is subject to the planning conditions and legal agreement being put in place. On that basis, I have no intention of recalling the appeal.
Flamingo Land’s mega resort proposal was opposed by a record 155,000 people. Objectors included the National Trust for Scotland, the Woodland Trust, Ramblers Scotland and SEPA, our national environment watchdog. The national park’s own experts recommended refusal, and its board unanimously rejected it on the bases of flood risk, loss of nature and biodiversity and a conflict with the national park’s aims, which are set out in law. That has all now been overturned by an official.
Does the minister understand why it looks like the profits of a theme park operator have been put ahead of Scotland’s national interest and our world-famous natural environment?
As I said earlier, the reporter has gone through the evidence and looked at it in the light of the planning regulations. They have looked at all the evidence that Ross Greer has mentioned and put together their report on the appeal. The report, which I encourage Ross Greer and others to look at, has put in place 49 planning conditions—they address all the issues that Ross Greer has raised—that need to be satisfied before the proposal is progressed, and a legally binding agreement is required to be put in place.
As I said, all the issues that Ross Greer has raised have been considered in the report. He should go and read it and look at the 49 planning conditions and reflect on the reality of the decision that the reporter has reached. It is an impartial expert view, and they reached a decision based on the evidence before them.
I have had the benefit of reading the report, but I say to the minister that the A82 has insufficient capacity to carry the volume of existing traffic, never mind more traffic being added to it. When there is the slightest bit of sunshine, the A82 becomes a car park as people from across Scotland flock to Loch Lomond. Flamingo Land will make the position worse.
The minister will know that the reporter’s decision flies in the face of expert evidence, the unanimous decision of the national park authority, the view of SEPA and the overwhelming majority of local people. I am bemused that the reporter’s opinion outweighs the opinions of all those ministerial appointees and expert agencies and, indeed, the view of my local community.
Therefore, will he take the time to visit the site, talk to local people and, on the back of that, review all the decision making and call in the planning application?
All the issues that Jackie Baillie has raised have been addressed in the reporter’s considerations. As I have said, 49 planning conditions, addressing all of her points, have been put in place and must be satisfied before the application is taken forward.
As I said earlier, because the appeal remains live, members will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any of the specifics of the case, other than to say that those issues have been addressed by the reporter.
In my area of West Dunbartonshire, the Flamingo Land proposal received more than 150,000 objections. I have received correspondence from many constituents and organisations that are outraged by the decision. Yesterday, I was contacted by representatives from the Loch Lomond Rescue Boat, who said:
“This is not democracy—it is despotism—stamping on the well-based decision of the constituted planning authority, and on the wishes of the local population.”
Why is the Scottish Government’s reporter ignoring the views of the local population, which fought so hard against the development?
I will reiterate. If Pam Gosal reads the report that the reporter has put online, she will find that it very much addresses the objections that the public, organisations and other interested parties have raised. That is why 49 conditions have been put in place that must be satisfied before the proposal can be taken forward. A legal agreement also has to be put in place that satisfies all those conditions, precisely in order to address the specific concerns that she and other members have raised.
I reiterate the calls from my colleagues that the Scottish Government should call in this planning permission.
Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority has the aim of making the park
“a thriving place that is nature positive and carbon negative”
by 2045. That is in line with the priorities that are set out in our national planning framework, NPF4. The Flamingo Land theme park is a totally inappropriate development that will clear considerable woodland to build 104 lodges, two hotels, a water park, a monorail and 372 parking spaces. The project’s carbon footprint and damage to ecosystems will be enormous, and the park authority is right to reject it. Scotland cannot meet our climate and biodiversity goals if our national parks cannot lead the way. If the Scottish Government has any intentions of meeting its biodiversity and net zero targets, how can it not support its own national park in opposing that development?
Again, the reporter considered all the issues that Lorna Slater has raised and that were raised as objections to the development. That is why the requirement for the legal agreement is in place and why the 49 planning conditions are in place, which have to be satisfied precisely in order to address the issues that she has raised.
I do not want to go into the details of the case, because it is not appropriate for me to do that. The member can reflect on the fact that the specific objections that the national park made have been addressed by the reporter’s work.
I thank my environmentally conscious constituents in the north-east who have contacted me with concerns that we might be about to see yet another of our national natural assets sold off and trashed by the highest bidder.
One constituent writes:
“It’s not that long ago that the Scottish government made the grave mistake of overturning a local planning committee’s decision not to allow Donald Trump to destroy the dunes at Menie, giving one of the nastiest people on the planet a foothold in our fair country.”
In February 2024, the Department for Business and Trade identified Flamingo Land Ltd as having failed to pay its workers the national minimum wage. How does giving permission to the resort align with the Scottish Government’s intention to end minimum wage avoidance under its fair work commitments?
Again, I ask the member to look at the reporter’s report, which has been published, the 49 planning conditions and the requirements on the legal agreement and the Lomond promise that goes along with it. She will find that they address the very points that she has just raised.
Previous
Business Motion