Back to Flamingo Land

I, like many of you, have seen the headlines concerning Flamingo Land. Naturally, as someone who loves our country’s natural beauty, I was a bit concerned by what I was reading. But instead of making a judgment based on headlines alone, I decided to do a deep dive into the proposed development. So here’s a short summary of the project, its pros and cons, and then a conclusion on whether I believe the development should proceed or not.

Loch Lomond is more than just beautiful looking scenery; it is a designated National Park, established with legislation that explicitly instructs decision-makers to prioritise the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural and cultural heritage before considering recreation or economic development. In this context, Yorkshire-based leisure operator Flamingo Land has spent the past decade attempting to build a £40 million holiday resort, marketed as ‘Lomond Banks’, on land owned by Scottish Enterprise at West Riverside and around the derelict Woodbank House in Balloch.

Here’s a timeline of the key events to bring you up to speed:

– after an open tender, Scottish Enterprise named Flamingo Land “preferred developer” for the 20-hectare site.

– a first planning-permission-in-principle (PPiP) application was lodged (this is a type of planning approval that establishes whether a development is acceptable in broad terms before all the specifics are put forward); a record 60,000 objections followed.

– Flamingo Land withdrew their bid on the eve of a likely refusal by the Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA).

– a re-scaled PPiP was submitted, promising a 60-bed aparthotel, 32-bed “budget”’ hotel, 104 woodland lodges, refurbishment of Woodbank House into 21 flats, an indoor waterpark and spa, restaurants, a craft brewery, visitor-hub and monorail, plus 370 car spaces.

– the LLTNPA board unanimously refused the revised scheme on flood risk, biodiversity and policy grounds amid ~174,000 objections and a 155,000-signature petition

– Flamingo Land appealed the decision.

– a Scottish Government reporter (an individual appointed by ScotGov to oversee appeals) stated he was minded to approve (they’re likely to approve but not yet given final approval) the appeal, subject to 49 conditions and a legal agreement (“the Lomond Promise”) to be signed within 26 weeks.

– Ministers confirmed they would not “recall” the case (power that lets them take over decisions instead of allowing a local authority or reporter to make the final decision), allowing it to proceed toward consent. Long story short, Lomond Banks is still alive procedurally, but final permission hinges on whether the aforementioned conditions can be met by November 2025.

– Initial press material quoted £40m; the 2025 appeal papers uprated this to £43.5m. Should note that capex is almost entirely for on-site assets (waterpark plant, lodges, monorail track). Very little is earmarked for wider infrastructure. ~ ~ – Figures repeated in STV News, the appeal reporter’s decision and Flamingo Land FAQs. Legally binding “Lomond Promise” lists Real Living Wage and local training guarantees.

– FAQ sheet commits to West Central Scotland main contractor and local suppliers. Should note that LLTNPA board report warns that benefits could be captured within the resort gates, leaving existing shops to suffer due to competition.

– Listed-building conversion is part of the PPiP description.

– Letter of Undertaking lodged with Transport Scotland. Importantly the contribution level is ; Transport Scotland’s own cost range for A82 upgrades runs to nine figures, dwarfing any private share. For Balloch, an area with above-average deprivation indices, the prospect of year-round hospitality jobs and a cleaned-up brownfield site is understandably attractive to some residents and elected members.

– National-Park visitor economy already worth £540m a year and supports ~4 million visits. Developer’s own EIAR puts net long-term operational GVA at just £0.53m locally (plus £0.40m in the wider region) and 80 full-time + 120 part-time posts. This is < 0.2% uplift to the park’s existing £540m visitor economy, well within normal year-to-year fluctuation. No quantified forecast of additional visitor nights or day trips was supplied by the developer.

– LLTNPA’s planning report and SEPA objections: “unacceptable risk” on the River Leven floodplain. Climate-driven flood events are increasing; building critical infrastructure in a functional floodplain contradicts national policy and raises future public liability questions.

– LLTNPA board recorded “huge costs to the council to alter infrastructure”, plus sewer and water-network deficits. Developer’s A82 payment is not costed; wider junction modelling still unresolved with West Dunbartonshire Council. Upgrades to roads, drainage, flood defences and GP capacity fall to Transport Scotland, Scottish Water and NHS boards all cost centres that dwarf business-rates income derived from 200 jobs.

– LLTNPA refusal reason; Woodland Trust objection. Scotland’s draft Biodiversity Strategy targets woodland expansion; Lomond Banks would remove/sever habitat at Drumkinnon Woods, fragmenting a sessile-oak site of high ecological value.

– Development will result in +250 peak-hour car movements and 370 new spaces on already-congested A82. The National Park’s 2024-29 Partnership Plan aims to reduce car dependency and promote low-carbon travel not increase it.

– ScotGov reporter conceded “locally significant effect”; LLTNPA said scheme exceeds site capacity. The proposal urbanises the park gateway, contrary to the first aim of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000.

– 155,000 objections; unanimous elected-board refusal later overturned. Public trust in planning will be severely undermined when mass civic engagement is sidelined by a single-person appeal. In short, every identified advantage is site-specific only ; the principal environmental disbenefits derive precisely from choosing this location. Balancing these factors against the statutory Sandford Principle (that conservation prevails where aims conflict) the LLTNPA’s original refusal reads as both proportionate and policy-consistent.

Even after the reporter’s conditions, the core dilemma remains: the right idea in the wrong place. A waterpark, monorail and 370-space car park atop a floodplain woodland is fundamentally misaligned with the climate-resilient, landscape-led tourism Scotland now champions. The site’s very sensitivity, its “brand” value to Flamingo Land, makes large-scale development the wrong environmental bargain.

Approving Lomond Banks would externalise future flood-mitigation costs onto public agencies, lock in car-based visitation, and normalise encroachment into protected landscapes. When you offset the headline £40 – £43m spend and 200 FTEs jobs against the un-priced public-works bill, competitive displacement and profit leakage, the net economic dividend becomes. The same capital could deliver better employment with fewer ecological trade-offs elsewhere in West Central Scotland. The Lomond Banks mega-resort fails basic tests of environmental stewardship, democratic consent and economic sense. Ministers should withdraw the current ‘minded to approve’ notice and redirect public support toward smaller-scale, community-backed projects that protect livelihoods and Loch Lomond’s world-class landscape.

Sources: https://pastebin.com/pAZfgR74