Loch Lomond resort plan creates ‘unacceptable’ flood risk, meeting told

Proposals for a £40 million development on the banks of Loch Lomond pose an “unacceptable risk” regarding flooding, an official told a planning meeting.

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and National Park Authority (LLTNPA) officials recommended in a report that permission in principle was rejected.

The authority received almost 175,000 objections – but a minister told a board meeting at Lomond Parish Church on Monday that people had been “duped”.

Plans for the resort on the banks of Loch Lomond in Balloch, West Dunbartonshire, were first submitted six years ago.

The Lomond Banks development, proposed by Yorkshire-based theme park owner Flamingo Land, included two hotels and more than 100 self-catering lodges as well as a water park, monorail, and 372 car parking spaces.

The current 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.

National Park board convener Heather Reid told the meeting that “speculation, misinformation and allegations” relating to integrity, were “unfounded and unjustified”, and that “bullying and harassment were unacceptable”.

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.

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% of households responded to an opportunity and “pain, misery and hopelessness” existed in the region, exacerbated by joblessness.

He added: “My interest is the kids I see walking home might find gainful employment here. 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.”