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: pastebin.com/pAZfgR74

Comments (17)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Hugh McShane says:

    Good,considered piece- Was deeply disappointed that Friends of L.Lomond& the Trossachs were tepidly approving of it- as an inaugural member from the 70’s, this seemed a betrayal, of sorts.

  2. SleepingDog says:

    So Flamingo Land Loch Lomond will be one of those post-societal-collapse encounters in games like Fallout or Horizon, complete with a collection of dodgy communications players pick up in the ruins. And possibly get attacked by rusting flamingo robots. I suppose JG Ballard got their first (will it be largely underwater?).

  3. John Wood says:

    Well said.

    It feels like another betrayal, another example of the Scottish Government’s failure to act in the public interest. .What contempt for the people they are supposed to represent.

    Edinburgh, the highlands, all becoming one big theme park now – visitors only, stuff the locals and the planet.

    It’s private affluence and public squalor – whoever we vote for.

  4. Anne says:

    No way should this development go ahead. This is a national park. You cant get permission to build one house there ket alone a ‘disney world’.

  5. Roger Gough says:

    The recipe for a tourist’s litter dump.

  6. Neil Timmoney says:

    If there was a petition against the building of Flamingo Land and 155’000 people signed it to stop it being built how can one member of the SNP change that decision in my opinion someone in the SNP has a vested interest or someone in the SNP has received a large financial bonus paid into their bank account having been brought up in Alexandria a mile away from where the proposed site is to be built I can’t see it being beneficial to people in the surrounding areas and the roads will not be capable of taking all the extra traffic it’s difficult enough just now if it’s a nice day there’s a large volume of traffic and very few parking places

  7. Tilda Mccrimmon says:

    As a resident of nearby Alexandria and follower of this saga. I personally welcome the Lomond Banks proposal and think the development could actually increase the posibility of maintaining the beauty and natural environment of Loch Lomond in the long term. Balloch is situated at the very southern end of Loch Lomond with the majority of the infrastructure on the River Leven rather than Loch Lomond. It is already the most populated area in close vacinity to the loch. It has the only rail station within walking distance of its shores. At present many visitors coming by car on the A82 bypass Balloch and visit less populated areas with even less infrastructure to support their needs. Many visitors are day trippers flocking to the area for a picnic and visit to the shore. Improving the facilities in Balloch and reducing the day visitors to the unspoilt areas of the Loch. The development is on land designated for tourism and leisure and includes the restoration of an A listed historic hotel. Getting drivers to leave their cats at home with incentives to use the train wouldbe a huge benefit.

  8. Kym Dawson says:

    The very fact they keep continue to appeal shows they are not a friend of Scotland. Shameful.

  9. Stephen Glover says:

    Stop Flamingo land at all costs. It must not be allowed to go ahead. I smell a rat with this development.

  10. Donald Anderson says:

    Flamingo Land appropriate to Taco Land..
    At Loch Lomond it would be to Scotland’s eternal shame

  11. Christine lambert says:

    Great piece … thsnk you .
    Why is this site not protected . Why is it not a world heritage site. ? How can one snp overturn what thousands of Scots have voted for . ?
    Politicians are there to serve the will of the people . Not themselves . This place must be protected not destroyed
    How dare the Scottish government say they won’t comment on this . By doing nothing they are effectively allowing this distraction to go ahead. SHAME ON YOU

  12. Catherine McGarva says:

    A very strong No to this proposed development. Tacky and demeaning to a beautiful landscape. Whywe pandering to big businesses who are only interested in their profits not on the environment or people. We already made the mistake of having Trumps’ golf courses. If this goes through we will have lost forever a special historical site. We don’t need cheap “Americanism” here. Keep our culture and facilities Scottish using our own talents and ideas. We are Scotland not Disney.

  13. George Archibald says:

    Terrific piece Mike. very well written and comprehensive.
    Can I sum up my view as follows….
    The last two paragraphs explain why really this is a bad idea on several fronts, and not welcome by the vast majority.
    My biggest concern lies in your third last paragraph. Democracy, or the lack of.
    Our current planning system is anything but democratic when so many, at every level, are against it yet one person. One person. One unelected person. Can overturn the stated will of the people.
    That’s not democracy. It needs to change. There are many other examples of this lack of democracy and frankly I’m thinking that the SNP will lose a lot of votes next time around purely because of this government’s planning system and it’s inherent lack of democracy. Totally unacceptable and wrong.
    My guess is that 99% of people would agree with this and I’m baffled as to why this system of unaccountability remains. Any thoughts?

    1. John Wood says:

      Yes it’s quite simple. International billionaires seem
      to be able to buy anything and anyone they please (although Elon Musk ‘can’t take it anymore’).
      Because their need to grab the entire resources of planet Earth (it’s called the Great Reset) for themselves is all that now matters. It goes beyond not caring about the consequences. The world and its people exist, they think only as ‘resources’ to be exploited for their pleasure. They apparently ‘own the science’ along with everything else. ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy’

      If Donald Trump ‘needs’ Greenland, or Canada, or Ukraine, or Gaza, he believes himself ‘entitled’ to have it.

      The rest of us are supposed to believe that the billionaires and their ‘philanthropy’ are the sole source of jobs or economic growth, but of course it’s all a lie.
      Politicians have all been bribed, blackmailed and bullied into doing as they are told.
      In America at least there is a constitution which gives the possibility of fighting back. Here, we have a king, who is actively if quietly very much involved in politics on behalf of himself snd his billionaire friends. He and anyone acting on his behalf has legal immunity and can do as they please. MSPs, the legal profession and the police has sworn allegiance to him and they fear him, and his super- wealthy and powerful friends, more than they fear public opinion. Because real democracy and the rule of law – in Scotland at least – are hollow, Orwellian charades.

      This is why we urgently need to elect new politicians who will actually stand up for us and create a free, sovereign republic that rejects techno-feudalism and serves the needs of people and planet. And cuts the puppet strings.

  14. Alan Laird says:

    Superbly considered piece by Alex Gill, the conclusions of which back up my emotional response to the attempted despoiling of Loch Lomond’s natural beauty. I’m pretty certain that FlamingoLand will not bring in more tourists, just different ones! The ones who visit to see ‘Scotland in miniature’ will head somewhere else (maybe Switzerland). But let’s not be entirely negative. While I accept the local area has its own problems (and not wishing to appear NIMBYist), surely somewhere more suitable and even more deprived can be found? My personal preference would be the Ayrshire coast, once the premier destination ‘doon the watter’ for holiday makers from Scotland’s largest city and beyond, also scenic, but now a scenic strip of empty amusement arcades and derelict cafes. Personally I’d nominate somewhere near Prestwick (great transport links – even an international airport) and oodles of surrounding space, though Saltcoates and many other towns and villages could suit perfectly too. Give Loch Lomond a break, give FlamingGoLand an alternative plus a healthy Clyde Coast development grant. They’d be welcomed there, I think.

  15. Kev says:

    Put this to a vote from the Scottish people.
    The majority will oposse this.
    Swinny, was never voted in by the electorate.

  16. Frank Mc kenna says:

    I live in Clydebank and regularly visit the Lomond Shores at the weekend in summer, even now it can take 3/4 of an hour to get from Renton to Clydebank when returning home with the weight of traffic.
    It will be horrendous if this diabolical money making scheme is to pass.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.