Why locals fear a gentrified township would ruin Loch Lomond forever
New proposals for development around Scotland’s most famous loch are being considered but angry residents are again questioning and fighting the plans
BESIDE the Old Luss Road in Balloch, gateway to Loch Lomond, a verdant and unspoiled patchwork of fields and woodland swaddles the ruins of 17th-century Woodbank House.
It provides an appropriately stately and pastoral approach to the loch, perhaps the best-loved and globally-renowned icon of Scotland’s natural heritage. Within a few years it could all be gone under a sprawling redevelopment proposal by Flamingo
Land, the Yorkshire-based leisure company.
For the residents of Balloch and the neighbouring communities gathered around Loch Lomond it’s the latest chapter in a four-year story.
In September 2019, Flamingo Land withdrew its original application for this development following 60,000 objections collected by Scottish Greens MSP Ross Greer, assisted by the Save Loch Lomond campaign.
Later, it emerged Flamingo Land retained an exclusivity agreement with the Scottish Government through its development agency Scottish Enterprise, which owns most of the land.
Despite the objections, Flamingo Land has since re-submitted its proposals, which its says are much changed from the original plans and more sympathetic to the concerns of the objectors and local residents.
The final decision, expected imminently, will rest with the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority.
Flamingo Land’s owner and its partner in this development, Scottish Enterprise, are throwing the kitchen sink at this.
Or, in the case of Woodbank House and the Old Luss Road, more than a hundred kitchen sinks.
These fields and woods could make way for 127 self-catering holiday lodges, a proposed development that forms just one part of much larger one, estimated to cost £40 million, which, if approved, will dramatically alter the character of Loch Lomond.
On two other sites approaching the loch’s shoreline, a 60-bed hotel, a leisure pool and a “water park facility” are envisaged. The plan is also to have restaurants, cafes, shopping areas. And a monorail.
Some local people feel that what’s being proposed around this, the most publicly accessible part of the loch, is a gentrified township, a sort of Loch Lomond @ Flamingo Land.
A familiar and unspecified suite of “economic benefits” are predicted to flow from the development if it goes ahead, including “more than 200” jobs. Some locals who have been campaigning against the proposals are sceptical. “What sort of jobs are we talking about here? Will they be long-term and sustainable and pay a real living wage? Or will these be low-paid, unskilled jobs for students and seasonal workers.”
On Wednesday morning, a little group of us, including two long-time residents of Balloch, conducted a tour of the sites that are intended to make way for Flamingo Land. Both residents expressed a wish not to be named.
Neither of them harbour any animosity to Flamingo Land. “They’re a major player in the UK leisure industry, why wouldn’t an organisation like that seek to plant a development on the shores of one of the world’s most beautiful locations? The potential to make a lot of money here is vast,” the residents said.
“But we have a National Parks authority that is tasked with preserving the integrity and character of Scotland’s wild spaces Some development of this area for tourism is long overdue, but this is not it.”
Our walk takes us into part of the ancient Drumkinnon Wood. It was in these woods upon which the Flamingo Land application foundered. In its fresh application the company says it has removed plans to build holiday lodges in the wood.
Yet locals who have studied the new plans say a large area of woodland, including 0.48 hectares of Drumkinnon, would still require to be levelled to make way for Flamingo Land’s large staff service and welfare accommodation facility. They say that this is contrary to Flamingo Land’s insistence that there would be “no built development on the ancient Drumkinnon Wood”.
They are also scornful about Flamingo Land’s stated desire to restore Woodbank House, a category A -listed building that once thronged to Glasgow’s Victorian-era demi-monde: actors, musicians and politicians.
Mr Greer has dismissed the proposal. “Redeveloping Woodbank House could have been welcomed, if it weren’t part of such an overwhelming and inappropriate proposal for this whole area of the lochside. Local roads and infrastructure just can’t cope with a ‘resort’ of this size,” he said.
Flamingo Land has always robustly defended its proposals and say it has tailored them to take account of local concerns. Jim Paterson, development director of Lomond Banks, the subsidiary company for the scheme, said: “We have listened to the issues raised throughout our consultation process, and the plans now include very significant amendments to ensure Lomond Banks will be in keeping with its environment and protect its treasured assets.”
An initial inspection of the Woodbank ruin suggests a substantial sum would be needed to complete a feasible restoration of the building. The two local campaigners say they are fearful that what is being proposed is little more than demolition of almost the entire building except the facade.
“Flamingo Land’s planned development in this area of Woodbank House may be against the principles stated by the National Park Authority for re-development of listed buildings and associated grounds,” they said.
They both feel the three large areas targeted for development around the loch represent a sort of pincer action and that a significant degree of stealth has been deployed. They also claim attempts to engage with the developer have been rebuffed and that they have an extensive thread of emails to demonstrate this.
Local campaigners have a few questions about the Flamingo Land development that still require answers. Their most pressing concern is about the fate of Drumkinnon Woods. Does Scottish Enterprise still have aspirations to develop the main part of Drumkinnon Woods and will it hold the company to its word not to develop the Woods and insist it withdraws its proposal to develop a large service area there?
The agency said it does not have any aspirations to develop Drumkinnon Woods. “A small part of the woods is zoned for development in the Local Development Plan – as part of the wider West Riverside allocation, although the LDP policies include safeguards or protection for certain categories/types of trees or woodland – and it’s for the National Park Authority’s planning department to determine if any development in that area is appropriate,” it said.
“Drumkinnon Woods is currently managed and maintained by Loch Lomond Shores Management Company and the onsite team. Flamingo Land Ltd would assume responsibility for the management and maintenance of the woods should the Lomond Banks planning application be successful and the land sale concluded.”
Alannah Maurer is a long-time resident in the Loch Lomond area and has been at the forefront of the campaign opposing the Flamingo Land proposals.
“There is no dispute that some kind of development needs to take place at Loch Lomond and of course the need for jobs,” she said. “However a business model like Flamingo Lands is so 1980s, Surely there has to be a wider vision than this?”
She cites the Scotland Outlook 2030 initiative, launched recently by Scottish Enterprise as part of the Scottish Tourism Alliance. It aims to develop the country’s future tourism strategy with the ambition of being a world leader in 21st century tourism.
“These are fabulous words,” says Ms Maurer. “But wouldn’t it be enterprising to engage with local people and groups; not-for-profit organisations; small businesses; schools and such like to develop a tourism strategy for Loch Lomond and beyond?
“It’s time to initiate a joined up tourism plan to benefit everyone, locals and visitors alike. We could have a ‘world class’ sailing and rowing school. You could have water taxis travelling across the loch to be met by small minibuses, allowing onward travel to destinations such as Arrochar and Tarbet.
“We could include forest schools and outdoor theatres. Gal Gael is another such enterprise that could benefit from inclusion in such a project, a lochside location to showcase traditional boat-building and the opportunity for locals to be employed and learn a trade. The opportunities are endless if we open our minds and reach out to the wealth of ideas and talent we have locally.”
She feels though, that the exclusivity agreement with Flamingo Land has effectively cut local organisations out of the long-term tourism strategy for Loch Lomond.
This underpins the objectors’ most deeply-held fears: that the development is a done deal. That so much time, money and energy have been spent by the Scottish Government agencies and Flamingo Land that it simply can’t be allowed to fall.
There is no dispute that some kind of development needs to take place at Loch Lomond and of course the need for jobs