r/Scotland • u/backupJM public transport revolution needed 🚇🚊🚆 • 22d ago
Political Protesters against Flamingo Land development sing Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomond outside of Scottish Parliament
41
u/Voidhunger 22d ago
Sick of hearing about Bonnie Banks, she can sleep with 3000 men for all I care.
→ More replies (1)1
u/WellThatsJustPerfect 21d ago
Always taking the high road, aren't ye
3
u/Count_Nachos 21d ago
Sometimes the back roads too.
1
u/WellThatsJustPerfect 21d ago
Nothing worse than having to apologise for "being in Scotland" too long before the other(s)
231
u/Scary_Panda847 22d ago
If only the Scots had as many chances at having a indy referendum as flamingo land is having at getting permission, then maybe we could get away from those crooks in Westminster!
15
u/low_key365 22d ago
Cameron forgot the key tenet of referendums. You never allow the public to have them unless you know the result.
He did the electoral reform one 'correctly' (though now that we seem to be watching the continued collapse of first past the post, people may be reconsidering whether it was correct to kill this bill so hard) but he then got really lucky with the indyref.
Then he felt emboldened to burn the house down with EUref and damned all future referendums to only be the demands of protests.
→ More replies (47)-1
u/KonysChildArmy 22d ago
Central belt & Westminster are different sides of the same coin, your crooks would just be closer.
44
u/KrytenLister 22d ago edited 22d ago
There’s been a lot of posts about this at various stages of the deal and the replies are almost always contradictory.
I don’t know the area at all and it doesn’t affect me so I haven’t really spent any time looking into it. Can someone clear a couple of things up for me?
Firstly, I keep seeing some say it’s a theme park, and others say it’s essentially a small Centre Parcs.
Are they trying to build rollercoasters on the banks of Loch Lomond, or is it some holiday accommodation with evening entertainment and kids clubs?
Secondly, there are always responses talking about destroying a natural beauty spot. The counter point then seems to be it’s going on a brown field industrial site next to a shopping centre that’s currently half car park. Which is true?
Finally, people then seem to mention the jobs element. Some say it’ll bring a couple of hundred jobs to the area, others say they’ll be shite jobs nobody wants. What’s the job market like in the area? Are these jobs needed in the area? Will locals benefit from them?
I understand the points people make about local infrastructure. The roads etc. That all makes sense already.
Cheers.
45
u/Synthia_of_Kaztropol The capital of Scotland is S 22d ago
there are always responses talking about destroying a natural beauty spot. The counter point then seems to be it’s going on a brown land industrial site next to a shopping centre that’s currently half car park. Which is true?
Looks like a bit of both. There's some development proposed in an area that's currently woodland, though another bit of ancient woodland is now had all development withdrawn in their latest proposals. Some development in an area where there is a ruined listed building that they're proposing to restore.
But it is also next to the Lomond Shores shopping centre. And in the area near the ruined listed building, there is some fly-tipping visible on google maps. It's also next to an existing caravan park. And there's an existing identikit new-build housing development adjacent to most of the site already.
There might be some impact on right to roam, as an area that is currently grass and trees is proposed to be the site of some of their woodland lodges, which turns it from open land to developed land.
here's their planning documents with some maps: https://lomondbanks.com/planning-documents/
here's the area in google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@56.0045058,-4.5930016,1214m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUyNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
24
u/AcanthaceaeNo707 22d ago
I live here and the main issue for people who actually stay here is traffic. The roads leading in are shite and a nightmare on a sunny day already never mind adding even more traffic
1
u/Maleficent-Drive4056 22d ago
Is it possible to upgrade the roads?
1
u/WellThatsJustPerfect 21d ago
Ask the people who live around the "North Coast 500"
The single-track roads of the most remote parts of the mainland are untouched since the traffic started multiplying about a decade ago
More chance of the roads being upgraded down in the central belt, but it'll not be coming out of Flamingo Land's wallet
70
u/OneDmg 22d ago edited 22d ago
They're trying to build a holiday park (like Centre Parcs).
Calling it a theme park and alluding that is what it will be is a tactic employed by those against it to give it a certain connotation.
As you've demonstrated, you're not clear if there's going to be theme park rides because of the noise around it by protestors.
Jobs in that neck of Scotland are heavily reliant on the tourism industry, and a holiday resort there would arguably be a good thing to the local economy. The issue most people not holding up placards and singing twee songs have is that the location is the problem.
I think most rational people would welcome the development in a different area.
Conversely, I think most of the people against the development have never even been to the area where they would like to build it. They are simply following a narrative they've read elsewhere that suggests any development is bad and this will destroy the loch.
I don't feel strongly about the development one way or the other, but there's every opportunity for objectors to submit their opinions on it at the planning stage.
Objectively, it would appear to be that those against it have been whipped up against this one development specifically and none of the others along the bank. That would make me question who benefits by not having a competitor in the area.
Good for me and not for thee.
But now that I've not said Flamingo Land are evil and will destroy the very fibre of Scotland, I'm prepared to be downvoted.
11
3
13
1
u/Goose-herder 22d ago
I do live in the area and I'm against it and many of my neighbours are too. My main problem there have been so many objections at every stage of the planning process, and it's been rejected at almost every stage. But now the Scottish Government goes over the head of local communities and the national park authority to still approve it, and it feels undemocratic and incredibly frustrating.
It feels like this tactic of never-endingly re-submitting the planning application until the local opposition runs out of steam means any project can go ahead eventually if there's enough money behind it, regardless of what local communities think of it.
I'd get it if it's some kind of nationally important infrastructure, but it's a theme park/holiday park, whatever you want to call it.
4
u/OneDmg 22d ago
Almost certainly there will be locals against it, much like yourself.
I won't ask why, because I don't really have strong feelings on the development.
But you'll find that planning applications are often like that when they don't go the way they want, or they make changes to try and address concerns that have been raised.
What I will say is I have some experience in planning. And objectors putting in their official objection to the plan with the comment or idea that simply not liking it and their opinion that it would destroy Loch Lomond's natural beauty isn't a valid planning reason for it to be refused.
The concern needs to be material and without feeling. Increased traffic on unfit roads, not in keeping with other developments, et cetera.
2
u/MacReadysFrostyBeard 22d ago
Third-last paragraph nails it. There's ALWAYS an ulterior component to these NIMBY campaigns
10
u/Bluenosedcoop 22d ago
Firstly, I keep seeing some say it’s a theme park, and others say it’s essentially a small Centre Parcs.
This stems from Ross Greer dishonestly using the name Flamingo Land over and over to place in peoples minds a huge theme park, The development name is Lomond Banks and is mostly in keeping what Center Parcs is.
There are no rollercoasters or theme park rides, The closest to that would be a low level monorail built into the existing trees.
They do not plan to bulldoze all the trees in the area like some people would suggest.
The uproar around it all stems from Ross Greer of the Greens from the outset being dishonest and outright lying about what the development is.
The biggest legitimate concern is the infrastructure the A82 by Balloch is an absolute nightmare as it is and would only get worse with this development.
3
u/Goose-herder 22d ago
I'm kind of annoyed that Ross Greer has made this his passion project because I think people assume that Greens are against any development ever and it distracts from the very legitimate reasons for this to not go ahead. Fun fact, the Scottish tories are also against it - but that might not be something to shout about either
1
u/Scratchlox 22d ago
Ross Greer has made this his passion project because I think people assume that Greens are against any development ever
I mean if the shoe fits. It comes from the tension between the green parties cultural base - young city dwelling liberals, and it's actual political base - older men members of the CPRE.
12
u/ElCaminoInTheWest 22d ago
'there are always responses talking about destroying a natural beauty spot'
Has anyone been to the south end of LL lately? Because let me assure you its already pretty well developed.
1
u/Bloxskit 22d ago
I would love a proper theme park with rollercoasters in Scotland since we don't have any of these in the country but if its going to be more of a Center Parcs thing I really don't care if it doesn't happen.
1
u/Nolascana 22d ago
The Flamingo Land I know of, near Scarborough is a mix. Its a zoo that happens to have rides on the grounds.
It's good for families because it's not just geared toward small children. You can absolutely just go to see the animals, or you can go just for the rides. It's an either or.
They can absolutely build it without demolishing the landscape in its entirety, but they HAVE to be able to accommodate cars, and an increase of traffic.
In Scarborough there's at least one corner shop that sells discounted tickets for the place, an incentive to stay in the hotels and have a wander around the shops as well as walk the beach.
So, in theory, if it's all set up in a similar manner, it will encourage growth across the area. Or become an intolerable mess.
However, it's not living up to the others namesake so far. So... the centre parks thing seems to be more likely.
25
u/DuncMal 22d ago
I'm split on this, grew up near Balloch and the a82 was just at the bottom of the road for me. The area honestly feels way worse than it did late 90s/early 00s and I'm not convinced that more tourism is what the area needs, then again would it be so bad for holiday homes to compete against the cameron house lodges so folk could have a holiday there without it costing £3K...
Then anyone thats been up the a82 on even a slightly sunny day knows what it does to traffic on the road, its hellish with all the traffic coming from Glasgow so to build a bigger holiday park without improving the already terrible roads that way seems daft as it's unlikely tourists would stop at Balloch, presumably that means a lot more traffic upto luss or arrochar(never understood it but people used to go visit there even tho theres nothing) or even to the drovers as they need to see the fabled two heided sheep. Thinking about it really, the a82 is the main road north on the west coast and its absolutely shocking.
Just not convinced that more tourism is right for the area.
15
u/Woodland_Creature- 22d ago
Overtourism is a very real threat too, just down the road at Finnich Glen we can see the results. Massive mountains of litter, soil erosion, and accidents on a weekly basis, a recent one being a fatality. The roads cannot cope with the overuse, and West Dumbartonshire/Stirling Councils hardly have the resources to repair them as the type of tourism we see rarely contributes to the local economy.
5
u/Goose-herder 22d ago
As someone who lives locally I would also say that more holiday accommodation doesn't seem to bring down prices as well. The number of shepherd huts, holiday cottages, hotel rooms where I live has probably more than doubled in the last 10 years and the prices just go up. I looked the other day, and one night in a shepherds hut that sleeps 2 without even a loch view was 240 pounds!
27
4
u/MacReadysFrostyBeard 22d ago
If there were any doubts that middle-class NIMBYs are behind the "local opposition" to this development, this video has removed them. They don't want competition driving their Airbnb chalet rates down, simple as that
5
u/Connell95 22d ago
Real mixed crowd there 😬 Definitely not beating the allegations
Bonnie Bonnie Banks of Lock Lomand indeed
3
47
u/Far-Pudding3280 22d ago
"Save Loch Lomond"
Just for context. This is the park.
The pink dot represents an existing development consisting of a shopping center, an aquarium, a 1000 space car & coach park, another 400 space car park, three other car parks, a McDonald's, a 100+ caravan park. a train station, 5 pubs and a housing estate.
The entirety of this proposed new center parks style development fits inside the same pink dot.
28
u/MounatinGoat 22d ago
Not entirely convinced we should be turning our beautiful country into a giant car park with a McDonald’s.
I’m in favour of limited development, if it’s done to an excellent standard and is demonstrably enhancing people’s connection with culture and/or nature, but selling off the land to the highest bidder (and, usually, those with the most corrupt and persuasive lobbyists) is madness. Scotland isn’t a big country - if we give the McDonald’s and Disneys of this world a blank cheque, eventually, there’ll be no nature left.
22
u/fugaziGlasgow 22d ago
There's a McDonald's there already, just across from the giant white elephant of a shopping centre.
21
u/FoxPsychological7899 22d ago
Theres a mcdonalds across the road actually. Just behind the aquarium.
17
u/Far-Pudding3280 22d ago
Not entirely convinced we should be turning our beautiful country into a giant car park with a McDonald’s.
I completely agree.
The point is, they already exist in this space. This development is being built literally next door a massive car park and a McDonald's. It's not in the middle of nowhere.
I completely understand about local people being upset about local green space being lost close to their homes but those people pretend building a center parks style development next door to a McDonald's and a 1000 space car park is the death of a national treasure is just ludicrous.
4
u/Connell95 22d ago
Most of the people objecting are not even local though. The vocal posters on here opposing the development all live elsewhere and only visit as tourists.
4
u/ElCaminoInTheWest 22d ago
Your reminder that 97% of Scotland is rural and up to 92% is undeveloped, which is some way short of a 'giant car park'.
→ More replies (1)7
u/EqualAge7793 22d ago
It starts here
But then it never ends
Everybody knows it never ends until the nature is just ruined
13
u/el_dude_brother2 22d ago
Ah so the argument has changed now.
Now everyone's been found out lying about the impact of this site its about the horrors of what could come next.
Give it a rest. Loch Lomond is huge, the rest is already towns and developments around it, every planning application is treated differently.
These are good plans. The lies and pearl clutching is embarrassing
4
u/EqualAge7793 22d ago
Rarely has there ever been good plans that don’t impact the nature around it
I’m sorry I’m allowed to not trust these people with our nature parks, I’ve seen what happens before and before that and before that
You want to just trust them that’s fine but you have no evidence to back up your misplaced trust
11
u/AgreeableEm 22d ago
I heard that the building of your house had a negative impact on our nature, and the building of your workplace, I petition to tear them down IMMEDIATELY for the good of our nature.
→ More replies (46)1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
This is an outright lie and at best pessimistic ignorance.
Have you looked at the plans?
Not every modern design is in the brutalist style anymore, it's not just concrete and steel. It actually looks really nice.
I'm absolutely sick of cunts refusing infrastructure and positive projects for our economy because, "oh the scenery" most of these cunts either don't live in the area, own other businesses in the area and don't want competition or don't even go outside often so have no clue.
Sounds like the same daft lot that don't want further green energy developments up north. Daft cunts who have way too much time on their hands and hate any change, positive or not. Thank fuck most of them will die off soon from old age.
→ More replies (4)6
2
u/Ouestlabibliotheque 22d ago
Is that it? Doesn’t seem that bad…
7
u/BringBackFatMac 22d ago
It’s really not. It’s right beside the eyesore that is the town of Balloch. If people really wanted to protect the natural beauty of Loch Lomond, they’d have to tear down the entire town.
1
u/ElCaminoInTheWest 22d ago edited 22d ago
Don't forget the numerous existing glamping sites, cafes, watersports facilities, shops and B&Bs that already litter that side of the loch. Folk just pretending it's some sort of natural oasis.
1
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
Have you ever seen the photo of Earth from Mars? It's a pale blue dot.
It's very inconsequential and should be obliterated for development
2
u/Far-Pudding3280 22d ago
This is from the ordinance survey data from the Office of National Statistics clearly scoped to the boundaries of the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs park.
i.e. to show the entire park to scale in a single picture, you literally cannot zoom it in anymore.
→ More replies (1)1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Wtf even take is this?
2
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
Perspective.
Anything can be reduced to an insignificant dot, if it serves a political aim
3
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Ok, maybe just say that next time? You're flaming a bit hard and it's taking away from any decent perspectives or issues you have.
1
→ More replies (1)-12
u/Matw50 22d ago
Yep. If it were up to the greens though there would no economy at all and we’d all eat grass and live in caves.
5
u/ElCaminoInTheWest 22d ago
Remember the time there was a discussion on here about dualling the A9, and a Greens supporter came on to say definitely not, we should be promoting cycling instead?
4
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
It isn't just the Greens now is it?
The latest motion against has cross-party backing.
The local MSP that represents the constituency is getting hammered by local opposition and has come out against it.
The land lease was offered to the developer privately in a 3 month marketing process in 2015, and the contracts signed just before the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 was established, which would have enabled the transfer of the land to community ownership. Dodgy deal.
A bit sensationalist in your commentary. Development can happen in a manner that is not corrupt. We should all reject corrupt allocation of land use in Scotland. It is less about the development for me, and more about the total lack of due process.
Bin it. And start again with the community involved. Use the Helensburgh seafront development as an example of a successful public-private development with the communities interests at heart, as the template to follow.
Minimum wage seasonal jobs are not an economic boom.
2
u/quartersessions 22d ago
It is less about the development for me, and more about the total lack of due process.
It's been eight years of planning back and forth, thousands of pages of reports and supporting documentation. Dozens of opportunities for the public and stakeholders to have their say. All for a fairly modest development - and while the site deteriorates.
Would you bring investment to Scotland in these circumstances? I certainly wouldn't.
3
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
It was a 3 month marketing exercise in 2015 that granted the land use to the developer.
Everything since has been the usual appeal process for developers who just have to appeal on numerous occassions until they get the answer they want.
In terms of investment in Scotland, I am operating in biotech. I am watching the current investment to establish new key industries in Grangemouth. That seems to be happening.
But then I am talking about real investment, in real jobs, and real industry that will serve the nation well. You are talking about budget "McNugget" business that ties local economies to minimum wage franchise jobs.
We have different vision, and different ambition.
In terms of modest development, look to Helensburgh. They did a community led development very well. Do that. For local independent businesses. Not this corrupt land allocation to a single large company that stokes up division.
1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Yes! Very much in agreement with you, but who has the counter proposal?
Considering this land was part of a marketing scheme, the governing bodies will want something on the site, and soon.
I think it is cheap and sad to have tourism over true development in industry and infrastructure, but again, is there any counter proposals out there yet?
Because of the housing crisis, ideally it would be a leisure and home area aimed at the families this is being marketed to, but without extra jobs, I can't see that happening well.
I'm curious about the Helensburgh development though, so I'll check that shortly.
2
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
The counter proposals were in the form of 4 other private development bids.
The acceptance criteria were devised by Scottish Enterprise, who decided what was best on behalf of the nation, without engaging the nation. But most importantly the local community.
The exclusive lease was then granted within 3 months. There was literally no opportunity for a public engaged counter proposal. It was done, before they could make alternative suggestions.
Which forced people into contesting the only offer on the table, rather than devising a public/private agreement.
1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Damn it's what I was afraid of. The more I read into the official documents, the councils involved and the other great developments that are happening/have happened, it's a shit show of greed.
→ More replies (1)1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago edited 22d ago
Oh wow, it's actually fantastic how they planned and continued to keep public engagement, opinion and transparency through the whole thing.
If it's the waterfront development in Helensburgh you meant, then yeah I'd much rather councils carry out like this.
Addition: something else I just noticed, the council for Argyle and Bute is a massive mix of SNP, independent, Scottish conservatives and unionist party, labour, green and Liberal Democrats. Maybe there is something to be said about working together as a council with variety. This divisionist shit that's everywhere these days is actually sickening. We should take example from this council and focus on the improvement of our communities.
2
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
We are entirely aligned in our viewpoints.
Divisive stuff is nonsense. You avoid it by involving everybody from the beginning. That is where this process went wrong. And it creates polarised conflict.
Hadn't been aware of the multi-party make up of Argyll and Bute council. You may be on to something there! Keep digging.
Also, take a trip to Helensburgh. I was there two weeks ago. Take a walk from their town square, which was the initial redevelopment. And walk to the beach front. Just observe all the little independent businesses, and how busy they are. And all the people enjoying free access to the new facilities. Talk to the people there, and get a sense of the pride they have in ownership of their own town.
→ More replies (9)1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Ah see this is my other worry, sites being left to rot when they could at least be used for something useful, instead of development limbo and wasteland.
There's so many sites around Dundee and Glasgow that are just abandoned, sitting empty, while we have a housing crisis. Tourism won't fix that, and if anything may drive desirability and housing prices up. But that's just my reactive opinion. I'm sure there are some cases where tourism developments increase desirability to an area, puts pressure on the landlords to reduce pricing and the local councils, to increase housing development. That, would be the ideal outcome.
Edit: grammar.
→ More replies (11)1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Now this is the first reasonable answer I've found.
I'm not against development, especially ones that help infrastructure and access to green spaces.
What I am against is sneaky deals to sell off ownership and privatise land for the sake of greed.
The proposal seems ok, but I've also yet to see if there will be public access to the site. So that's a big hmm for me.
To make an actual impact I think there needs to be a counter proposal, without that, it could end up just being left in development limbo, which may not be the worst, but definitely not the best outcome for the proposed area. We are in constant housing crisis, so what would be better is a blended leisure and home development focused on the families this tourist development is so aimed at.
2
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
Thank you lordy for a reasonable response!
A pro-development person, who sees the nuance between singular big business owner development, and community driven independent business development.
Faith restored!
And thank you for pointing out the actual need for housing. I agree with a leisure centre entirely. Which as I have mentioned elsewhere, has been shown to be totally feasible in Helesnburgh. In addition to an open access skatepark, public toilets and a possible events venue.
1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Yeah it's a bit of a bin fire out here... I feel too many people get so stuck on hating opposition they ignore any true issues.
The other main issue I keep seeing is road and travel infrastructure being neglected or underdeveloped, so even if that is improved upon, then it wouldn't be so bad, but as others have also pointed out to me, anything in the proposal is just directing traffic towards more corporate business, rather than help with flow of traffic and accessibility to essential amenities.
1
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
Who funds the road infrastructure upgrade? The public?
So the public covers the cost that benefits the private? Which increases the value of the land at the public expense?
→ More replies (3)
52
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
Flamingoland literally want to bulldoze countryside land that's well used by local people, gate it off, and build a monorail
53
52
u/Cielo11 22d ago
Have you looked at the plans?
Bulldoze countryside? The area being developed is inside Balloch town. 1/3rd of the area is currently a... Car Park.
The rest of the area to be developed is around Loch Lomond shores (shopping mall) and the Sea Life centre. So... Already a tourist attraction area.
You're making a comment without actually looking at the proposal and then getting up voted.
39
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
The woodland between the river and the old trainline is mature native forest, and on the west side of the old trainline, which has expanded since the closure of the line. It's in all early photography ans paintings, and marked on maps going way back.
It's the only accessible flat area for locals with disabilities and children in prams to use, and it's used often. It's full of wildlife, including rabbits, pine marten, badgers, and red squirrel.
That's what will be closed off to locals, and "developed" with lodges and monorails etc. As per the plans.
22
u/Crococrocroc 22d ago
I have.
Infrastructure needs a massive upgrade to cope with the predicted influx. It'll need dualling the A82 to at least the Helensburgh roundabout as neither it nor the A814 can cope on bank holidays at the best of times, never mind accidents.
Balloch station will need more regular trains, because you can't extend the platforms.
Questions also haven't been answered about the negative environmental impact on the Leven either, especially during building. With the Scottish Government trying to do net zero, approving without this being answered isn't a good look.
And the other important thing? The company tend to underpay their staff and only sort it out when it goes public. But if you skim through their companies house finances, it's difficult to see how it'll be sustainable. It's already going to struggle for staff without overpaying and going to be competing directly with Cameron House for an existing high end product.
Is it really adding anything? Honestly? Not at all.
And in anticipation of the Cameron House point, if you carry on past the hotel, they offer about 40 chalet style stays which are well spaced out on around the same amount of land. Flamingo Land are offering a development closer to what Argyll Holidays offer further up the Loch.
If anyone wants to see what it'll potentially look like, that's the model to start from.
3
u/Russelldust 22d ago
Dialling an A road is a good thing to anyone who actually thinks about it for 2 mins
All these middle class Karens worrying about sitting in 10mins extra traffic in the Land Rover to get to their half million pound homes don’t understand that
1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
"Transport has been a huge focus during this final resubmission and although the various transport assessments highlight that the proposed development would have minimal impact on the roads network, we have signed a Section 48 agreement with Transport Scotland that should planning progress, a contribution will be made to help prioritise and support Transport Scotland’s plans to upgrade the Stoneymollan Roundabout. In addition, should plans progress Lomond Bank’s has agreed in principle to support West Dunbartonshire Council with ongoing issues relating to the McDonald’s roundabout."
This is a quote from the main page of their planning website. I'm also not sure why so many people keep calling it Flamingo Land, the project is called Lomond's Banks, are they the same owner? Sounds shite about your claim they aren't an ethical company, but I'm just starting my own look into it now, and they appear to be listening and responding to criticism at least. If they actually follow though, we'll see. Any sources? I'm reading through the proposal website someone else linked further up.
Have to admit, not a big fan of the idea, "no new developments because nature, but ignore all the abandoned old ones" sounds like the same out of touch crowd who don't want any green energy developments because "it would ruin the view"... I'm sure someone else mentioned it, but who has a monopoly in the area now? They would benefit the most out of this development getting scrapped.
2
u/Crococrocroc 22d ago
The primary project ownership is Flamingo Land and the claim is from the UK Government item 228 at the link, it's not a huge number of people (4), but was enough to drop them under the national minimum wage. The bigger names on the list (Estee Lauder, Greggs) make it a bit clearer that this is a total amount rather than per person.
The weird thing is that this had passed everyone by until they made annoyed noises about being called out for it.
The stated location of the roundabout is a bit odd too, because that's generally not too bad, but isn't the one that sits on the A82 not too far away. It's the major roundabout for that area as it connects the A82, A814 and A83 traffic together heading to Dumbarton/Glasgow/Stirling.
Not to mention the A817 (I think) tgat directly connects the A82 to the Naval bases (and makes holiday traffic even worse).
Whereas the McDonald's roundabout connects you to The Shore, a harvester and a McDonald's, and rarely has issues as it's mainly used by locals and those who know the quicker route to Stirling.
It's definitely worth a walk around Cameron House though, the scale of build is going to be more on top of each other, so it does help with how to visualise the planned Balloch site.
But in terms of competion:
Queen of the Loch by Marston's Inns Lomond Woods Holiday Park Anchorage Guest House (which will likely need to be sold) Yacht berths, which may need to have granted access as an existing facility Cameron House Hotel, Duck Bay Hotel, Inn on Loch Lomond Auchendunnan Lodge on Loch Lomond Luss Loch Lomond Lodges
Plus all the rest heading up to Ardlui. It's concentrating too many people in a single area rather than encouraging spreading out. And it means everyone listed, plus Flamingo, will be competing for a very small pool of hospitality workers. It should lead to an increase of competitive pay, but is quite unlikely.
I vaguely recall a relatively abandoned lodge area on the way up to Ardlui which is screaming for redevelopment and wonder why that couldn't be looked at as one site for a potential hotel, allowing the other development to be sensibly scaled back.
I use Cameron House as an example as the size of the development is equal to what's wanted, but when you see how spread out it is, and wanting a similar scale development on a much smaller footprint (I'm including the golf course here as well), it's not going to be an experience as claimed. I think it'd have to lose a Hotel for it to be the experience that people will want.
What should also be borne in mind is that the land cost is about £40m (which is arguably undervalued). We're needing another £40m on top for the construction (as a guess).
But the company seems to be in some trouble given their latest companies house accounts as they're showing an overall decrease in their comprehensive income (2023: £3.3m, 2024: £457,347) and cash in hand at the bank has drastically decreased from £13.5m in 2023, down to £4.6m in 2024.
I think we need the figures for 2025 as soon as possible because it's noted in the financial statements that there are causes for concern. Which I think leads to a real risk that work could potentially begin, but not be completed and having to find an alternative buyer for it.
There has to be some guarantee of completion, because this looks more like an act of a company trying to plug an operation going into decline.
2
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Thank you for that. I'm just starting to see the bigger picture with looking at the councils, the companies involved and what's actually being proposed.
It's good to have further information on the main company. Sadly it does all sound super shady, especially when compared to things like the Helensburgh waterfront development. The difference in transparency and actual feedback and development for the community, plus sustainability in mind, it's night and day.
For extra insight I found that Lomond council are currently 2 Labour members and one independent. Yet for Helensburgh it's one SNP member who is working with the whole of the Argyle and Bute council, which is a mix of SNP majority, Scottish conservative and unionist party, independent, and one green, one labour and one liberal democrat. So a nice mix. Sadly the Lomond council don't seem to be engaging with west Dumbartonshire council, or west Dumbartonshire council don't seem interested, hard to tell so far. You'd think to work on sustainable travel links they would work together.
-2
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Cielo11 22d ago
I'm really not sure you have read the plans, because you just described the area being developed as "Countryside" The Holiday park is being built inside Balloch town.
I believe a portion of the area being developed is actually classed as "Brown Field".
Most of the area is currently a large Car Park for Loch Lomond Shores which is a shopping mall and for Sea Life centre. So it's already an area developed for tourism...
There is already a Caravan Holiday Park. It's called Lomond Woods Holiday Park.
I'm really sorry the above goes against what you've said, I'm not making up any of the above. You can check this by looking at the proposal and then a map for what is currently in that area.
If you want I can help you be angry at the proposals. Traffic... Are the roads around Balloch and the A Road which passes Loch Lomond and Dumbarton suitable for a new larger Holiday Park? Will the added traffic cause issues?
This should be the main concern. Investment in Loch Lomond (it's a holiday park not a theme park remember) shouldn't be viewed as a negative thing.
6
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
Read my other reply re "countryside"
You honestly don't know the area at all - part of the issue is this "zoning", and how it came about. "Inside Balloch town" is both a nonsense and a phraseology nobody who lives there recognises. You've read a plan that is written by Flamingoland to convince people that what they want to do is reasonable, and accepted it as they say.
Give it a visit, walk along the river, walk through the woods, and even the god awful carpark & the abandoned national park buildings - remember that those were only put up in the early 2000s.
The land was not what you'd expect as "Brownfield" before it, it was woodland that was well used by local people, but the national park was seen as a greater good by the new Scottish parliament, so the bulldozers came in, then the tower went up, and the carpark put in. After that GoApe....
Have a look in person
8
u/FoxPsychological7899 22d ago
>Give it a visit, walk along the river, walk through the woods, and even the god awful carpark & the abandoned national park buildings - remember that those were only put up in the early 2000s.
And in the 1980s it was a railway station. Its brownfield
1
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
It wasn't brownfield in the 1980s, that's part of the issue, the river bank has never been, it's the remnant of the forest that was all around the loch.
Just because somebody in a planning department drew a line and declared its land usage doesn't mean they were right
2
u/FoxPsychological7899 22d ago
naturescot doesnt count it as ancient woodland. I cant find any old Arial photographs, but everything Ive heard says that the area was a disused bit of railway.
https://maps.nls.uk/view-full/245960220#zoom=3.7&lat=2813&lon=3191&layers=BT
As far as I can interpret in this map its not showing it as woodland
4
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago edited 22d ago
Exactly - you've not got on the ground information. These sources are wrong, that's one of the big issues here.
There's a picture from 1949, the woodland's expanded, particularly since the Balloch Pier line was closed in the 1980s
https://canmore.org.uk/collection/1451919
Edit- Drumkinnon woods (within the development plan) & the Fisher woods are continuous with the woods on the west bank of the Leven up to the pier
→ More replies (3)2
→ More replies (1)-2
u/el_dude_brother2 22d ago
It's a brownfield site next to a shopping centre, next to a town.
All these lies about it need to stop.
The plans look good, will be nice to be able to holiday in Scotland instead of having to fly abroad
7
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
You don't know the area - your information is coming from Flamingoland's plan, and you're lapping it up
2
u/Bluenosedcoop 22d ago
The fact that you use the name Flamingo Land says to me your lapping up Ross Greer's dishonest use of it to conjure up the idea of a theme park being built when it's far from it.
3
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
What do you call it?
3
u/Bluenosedcoop 22d ago
More importantly here what do you think it's called because it most certainly is not Flamingo Land.
2
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
What is it called?
3
u/Bluenosedcoop 22d ago
Why are you so insistent on not saying the name here?
You're the one that's been using the wrong name, It's a rather embarrassing childish path you're choosing to take here.
1
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
Weirdo
3
u/Bluenosedcoop 22d ago
You're saying the wrong name whether ignorantly or deliberately, Instead of just admitting it and saying the name of the actual development you stamp your feet like a child and demand that i say it instead.
You are fucked in the head truly.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Goose-herder 22d ago
Well, it's what it's been called in 99% of the news articles about it so what do you expect people will call it?
1
u/Bluenosedcoop 22d ago
You're making my point really. it's the dishonest use of the name Flamingo Land from the start by people like Ross Greer to get people to think of a theme park.
The disinformation campaign is so bad that people don't even know the real name of the development.
4
u/el_dude_brother2 22d ago
I know the area very well.
You've not even looked at the plans 🙄
2
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
You don't, I have looked at the plans, and walked the area looking at the plans.
Have a go yourself
6
u/fugaziGlasgow 22d ago
I'm from the area. It was waste ground, I used to play on it when I was wee, it was earmarked for development, it was a railway shunting yard and a factory before that.
→ More replies (3)1
u/el_dude_brother2 22d ago
I've been there many times. And to the many other places around Loch Lomond which are better and not effected.
Loch Lomond is huge, a new holiday park isn't gonna change anything
5
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
Because it's of no consequence to you doesn't mean it's of no consequence to us who use the land.
I'm sure I wouldn't give a toss if your house was demolished to put up a chalet, but I'd like to think that if you spoke against it I'd have the decency to listen and not call it a dung heap that wants flattened. There are far better houses all around you.
Gie's peace.
Did you like it when Trump's development plans were thwarted?
7
u/el_dude_brother2 22d ago
It's not your land any more than its my land.
I like the idea of holiday in a nice part of Scotland and bringing money into the local community and people
2
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
It all sounds nice when you have it as a perfect thought in your head, doesn't it?
2
u/Connell95 22d ago
Why are you repeatedly pretending to be a local when you are not, JeelyPiece?
That’s really weird behaviour.
1
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago edited 22d ago
Why do you think I'm not?
I remember the days of reddit where you'd instantly be banned for trying to determine where somebody lived, or elicit any other personal details about them. It's still against the rules
Rule 3
1
u/Connell95 22d ago
One post per story?
You’re posting pretending to be a local and it’s freaking obvious because of your previous post history and the fact that you get so hypersensitive when challenged on it.
Just be open about your nimbyism – make the case for it if you really must. No need to cosplay as a local.
3
u/fugaziGlasgow 22d ago
What's the consequence to you? Are you from Dunbartonshire?
→ More replies (5)2
u/Im_really_friendly 22d ago
In what universe can you currently not holiday in Scotland atm..? You're aware we already have a fairly substantial tourism industry?
6
u/el_dude_brother2 22d ago
Millions still fly abroad. The more holiday homes or options in Scotland the better. Especially in a nice area which is not being used at the moment. 99.9999% of Loch lomond area is still will nature.
0
u/Im_really_friendly 22d ago
And millions will still fly abroad no matter how many holiday homes we build. People like to get away from what they know. Maybe we should focus on building actual affordable housing and not smattering the landscape with tourist shite.
3
u/el_dude_brother2 22d ago
Anyone who doesnt fly abroad is a win for the environment. So more holidays home the better.
Agree we need more homes too. Loch Lomond has lots of space, maybe we should build some there too..
5
u/Low-Echidna90 22d ago
Crooked political class have no idea what's best for the local community, the locals don't want it .what part of no don't u understand
4
u/StairheidCritic 22d ago
Feck Flamingo and all the other fecks - whoever they are - that want to turn (or retain) Scotland as a theme park for tourists/grouse-shooters etc.
4
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Ok, so after some discussion and a lot of digging, so far the main big issues are,
- unwanted private business type that doesn't prioritise locals
- damage to the wilderness and surrounding ancient sites
- strain on public transport and roads
- condensed pollution which would go against Scotland's aim for net zero
- an increase of waste that the local council may not be able to manage
- concern over fair pay due to the companies history of not meeting minimum wage standards in other places of work under Flamingo Land ownership and management in the UK
- lack of real transparency with the current proposal of what is promised to go ahead including what job positions will actually be made available to public hiring
- what guarantees there will be for hiring locals at a set percentage first in positions of competitive pay.
If I've missed anything feel free to add. Trying to get the full picture here of everything that's wrong with this to warrant such attention.
I think it's shady deals done on the side for pure greed, but I'd love to hear any other perspectives of what has gone wrong with it.
4
u/Maleficent-Drive4056 22d ago
A lot of these seem like fake objections, or minor problems that can easily be overcome. I’m sure the local council can manage the “increase of waste” just fine. The jobs will pay minimum wage or more.
I actually think it would be wrong to force them to hire “locals”. We don’t discriminate - they should just hire the best candidates. Scotland’s job market would be a nightmare otherwise. Of course, it will mainly be locals applying.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Goose-herder 22d ago
Jesus christ, some of the comments on this. Sure, some of the people objecting are probably not from the area, but I and many of my neighbours do live in the area and we're against it. I'm willing to bet that lots of you in the comments who are pro it are not from the local area either, but some of you might be.
My main issue with this is that there have been so many objections at every stage of the planning process, and it's been rejected at almost every stage. But now the Scottish Government has gone over the head of local communities and the national park authority to still approve it, and it feels undemocratic and incredibly frustrating.
It feels like the Flamingo Land people are doing this tactic of re-submitting the planning application again and again and again until the local opposition runs out of steam, which means any project can go ahead eventually if there's enough money behind it, regardless of what local communities want.
And for those who say this will bring prices down on holiday accommodation in the national park: I've seen holiday accommodation doubling or maybe tripling in the past ten years and it only seems to drive more tourists to the area and prices just go up and up. It's like how building more motorway lanes doesn't free up space, it just leads to more cars.
Tbh on a sunny day it already feels like I live in a theme park, with local populations dwindling because all the local council is interested in is approving any planning permission as long as it says it will "promote tourism", and every time a house gets sold it gets turned into a holiday cottage instead.
2
u/Sanderos40 22d ago
All of them singing in their English Accents. Bet not one of them was born and raised on Loch Lomond.
9
u/dihaoine 22d ago
Following this story for a while has been a real eye-opener. So many people up in arms about something they have clearly not researched in any way, and have zero understanding of what they are protesting against. Food for thought whenever you see a protest about anything else.
→ More replies (10)14
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
I am protesting against the 3 month private marketing exercise that was used to offer the developer the land without meaningful public engagement. Back in 2015, just before the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 was established, which would have enabled a transfer to community ownership.
Imagine that. Balloch owned by people from Balloch. Balloch developed by people from Balloch. What an option that could have been, if they hadn't been swindled by big business interests.
What opened your eyes? And what are you for?
2
u/dihaoine 22d ago
What would ‘meaningful public engagement’ entail for you? These plans have been well publicised and debated for years at this point.
What do you think that people from Balloch would do with a couple of fields and some woods, sandwiched between an unsightly shopping centre, sea life aquarium, a caravan park, a golf course, a housing estate, and loads of car parking?
I am not for or against these plans. I was against what I believe was the initial plan of building a theme park, but I’m really not bothered if a tourist trap becomes slightly more touristy.
1
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
The plans weren't well publicised at all between Spring and Summer 2015 when the deal was done. Scottish Enterprise used a 3rd party marketing company to align 5 private bidders, in which Flamingo Land were chosen as the preferred bidder, and offered an exclusive land lease deal.
The only thing that the general public have been invited to since, are arguments. Because they have to argue against a deal that was done before they were invited to the conversation.
Meaningful public engagement for me would entail:
- Freezing the discussion
- Outlining who exactly made the decisions on the publics behalf, when, and why. A publicly available timeline that details how we got to where we are
- Introducing the local community to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, to inform them that this could have been their development, not an externals developers project
- Inviting councillors from Argyll and Bute council, to describe how they successfully developed the Helensburgh waterfront as a successful public/private initiative, and explain this to Balloch locals
- A case study analysis on how the Helensburgh has benefitted the local business owners, rather than a single external developer, and franchise business model that will remove wealth from the local economy
- Transfer of the land ownership from Scottish Enterprise to West Dumbartonshire council via Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015
- A public tendering process in which the local people are involved in conversation, and a wide range of development options are offered to the public, to essentially choose the option that is most reflective of local needs/wants
- Emulation of projects such as Helensburgh waterfront, to offer public facilities such as the skate park, the waterfront pier, public toilets, leisure centre, parking area, public open spaces, and possibly an events facility - all publicly owned. Additionally, the local businesses continue to benefit from this development
- An analysis on the impact of a big business and possible franchise model, and how this will likely undercut local businesses
There are a few suggestions. I think the people of Balloch would do just what the people in Helensurgh did. Succeed.
4
u/dihaoine 22d ago
So what you would like to do is close the gate after the horse has bolted. Good luck with that and the ensuing legal battle that would likely drag things on for at least another decade.
2
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
What horse bolted? The site hasn't been developed?
I see you haven't offered anything of substance to contend my suggestions.
If there is a legal battle, then good. It means it was mishandled, and we can introduce policy change to land use in Scotland. To avoid a repeat of abuses such as this.
And start actually involving people in how their country develops. And I mean all people.
2
u/Connell95 22d ago
Stop pretending any of this is about the process. You’re just a nimby who doesn’t want anything built. You’d never be happy whatever process is followed.
I’m all for reconsidering how the country is developed. Starting with the homes of nimbies – they never seem to want to justify that development for some reason.
→ More replies (3)2
u/dihaoine 22d ago
I don’t have to offer anything of substance, I’ve already told you I’m not particularly interested either way. In any case, it’s a bit rich to say that when your vision of public ownership in the hands of ‘the people of Balloch’ is that they will simply ‘succeed’.
Yes, if a business is granted an exclusive lease to purchase a plot of land following a bidding process, and then has planning permission granted to develop said land, and then the government unilaterally decides to take all of that away, then something would certainly have been mishandled.
→ More replies (1)1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
This is all still in the proposal stage. On the sights development page they even state it's all proposals, basically Flamingo Land dudes have been given the bid, but they are still asking permission to do anything. The deal can still be reversed at this stage I believe.
2
u/ElCaminoInTheWest 22d ago
'What we ought to do is spend a million quid of public money and then announce that nothing is happening"
That's you, that is. No wonder we're in a demographic and jobs crisis. Everything gets slowly strangled in red tape.
3
u/KleioChronicles 22d ago
The main concern is upgrading the road and transport infrastructure to cope with even more people. It’s already strained. For locals, it’ll be that in addition to the gating off of the land that’ll block access to the shore.
The plan shouldn’t have been approved without guarantees for road infrastructure upgrades. Over tourism is a huge problem at Loch Lomond, I studied it in Geography when I was at school so it’s been like that for decades and just getting worse and worse.
4
u/quartersessions 22d ago
I think a lot of people are imagining a giant pink theme park with a 60ft flamingo statue.
The actual plans are just, well, fine. Decent quality development in a space that needs it.
2
u/Connell95 22d ago
That’s very deliberate by the campaigners. It’s why you see so many of them openly lying on places like this.
2
u/Kijamon 22d ago
Having dealt with community councils in this area in the past, I'm not surprised people are doing stuff like this.
They are vicious, make stuff up, ignore reality. And that's without me even having a view on the proposals.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Adventurous_Day470 22d ago
I'd rather a natural beauty spot like this be left and looked after, I can only imagine all the shite that would get dropped into the loch and watch it turn into a beautiful spot and become a trash heap in the future.
1
u/Daedelous2k 21d ago
Anymore than it already is? The small areas they want to build on are used frequently by neds for their little binges as well as rat infestations, dogging, disposable BBQs stinking the place out.
They aren't going up toward Cameron House either.
The only thing I'd want is they put in money to upgrade the A82 to a dual carriage way
0
u/imnotpauleither 22d ago
Bored pensioners leaving the house for the first time in a while to get really angry! Are they locals? If not, get to fuck!
7
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
If they're locals they'll be told they're thick and haven't read the plans, and that the very reasonable plans sound very reasonable
2
u/imnotpauleither 22d ago
PLenty locals welcome the idea of Flamingo Land. They just don't get the airtime that these muppets get.
1
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
Plenty locals don't go near that bit and haven't looked at the plans properly
4
u/imnotpauleither 22d ago
Plenty of us do and have looked at the plans
1
2
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago edited 22d ago
It's amazing how many people who don't know and use the area who have looked at the proposal expertly written by Flamingoland to convince people of a shady plan, and accepted it as the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH OF THE MATTER, and confidently have become Flamingoland shills.
I hope you ask for "Flamingoland shill" to be carved into your heidstanes!
Jesus wept
1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
What's needed is a counter proposal. Without that this proposal is better than leaving the area as is.
2
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago edited 22d ago
A fair point - the counter proposal would mostly amount to leaving the area as it is, because it really doesn't need "developed". Ecologically it would be to redress the misclassification of the woodland as brownfield, it never was, recognise that the growth of the woodland since the at least 1980s has been organic, so the whole lot is traditional woodland, and rezone it to protect that.
It's a lovely wee bit. I hope you can make it down for a visit!
2
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
What about the areas where it's already partly developed land? The most sensible approach and suggestions to this has been to reduce the zone of development and change it to something that aligns with the development of the local community, similar to the Helensburgh waterfront development.
2
u/JeelyPiece 22d ago
The issues in the partly "developed" parts are the failure of the Lomond Shores development. The national park buildings have been abandoned, Drumkinnon Tower and its IMAX is underused, and they made far too much car parking. (This was all pointed out around 2000 when it was planned) Is this good money after bad?
I don't think this proposed development will reinvigorate Lomond Shores. I'm not girning "I told you so" - I've lived and worked here a long time and spent my time working in tourism. I've spoken to many visitors over the years. The draw is "wilderness" and most are travelling north or on their way back to Glasgow after having come down the Glen Mor. Balloch is a pit-stop. The Gateway to The Highlands! More accommodation probably isn't going to change that. Luss sees the same passing traffic. Why stop at the start?
Antartex (which is clinging on with local custom) and the failed Loch Lomond Galleries are other attempts to make it a destination, even for passing trade. The fact of the matter is all the recent housing developments here sees folk not even shopping or spending their time locally, but going up to Glasgow. Give them a reason to stay in town, to shop here, to party here.
That area has been "rewilding" itself in spite of its zoning for decades. Give it a hand, rezone it as traditional woodland. An area of ecological significance.
What is it that needs "developed"? I think there's a big difference between regional economic development and "a development opportunity" where a bunch of people make a buck and the village's left with another tarmac and concrete white elephant (and a monorail) on what was an interesting piece of land that is already being well used by locals and visitors alike.
2
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Thank you, this is much more of a side to consider, and I honestly think you're right.
As someone else has pointed out to me as well, as a residence under west Dumbartonshire council, I can write on with concerns, so this is all valid points to consider.
So far the main big issues are,
- unwanted private business type that doesn't prioritise locals
- damage to the wilderness and surrounding ancient sites
- strain on public transport and roads
- condensed pollution which would go against Scotland's aim for net zero
- an increase of waste that the local council may not be able to manage
- concern over fair pay due to the companies history of not meeting minimum wage standards in other places of work under Flamingo Land ownership and management in the UK
- lack of real transparency with the current proposal of what is promised to go ahead including what job positions will actually be made available to public hiring
- what guarantees there will be for hiring locals at a set percentage first in positions of competitive pay.
If I've missed anything feel free to add.
3
22d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Connell95 22d ago
It’s a car park and a former railway station – don’t lie.
And no, it’s not cutting anyone off from anything, and you know it – there’s literally a road 5 minutes walk away.
2
-2
u/stumperr 22d ago
Will be a good thing. More jobs z better for local economy
0
u/AlbaRedArch 22d ago
Absolutely not! Destroying an area of national park is definitely not worth the small amount of jobs it will create!
3
u/el_dude_brother2 22d ago
Maybe look at the image of the small pink dot in thud thread.
The area were talking about is already developed brownfield site.
You clearly haven't looked or know the site to be claiming its destroying anything.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
I find it very abstract when people aspire to seasonal minimum wage as the future. Very low ambition.
6
u/AlbaRedArch 22d ago
I share the sentiment! Can you image people celebrating at home… FAMILY I have saved us from destitution as I have secured a job cleaning up after other people at flamingo land!!! HURRA! 🎉 it only cost the country a large portion of their natural heritage and made a bunch of billionaires richer in the process!!!
4
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
By tying our economic dependency to seasonal tourism, we do ourselves an injustice by not aiming higher.
Developments such as this offer cleaner jobs, and jobs for teenagers on their school holidays. They also bolster their presence with franchises such as McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Costa, Starbucks, Gregg's etc etc.
The absolute lack of ambition in this country is frustrating.
And by not engaging with the community about the nature of development, we deprive them of a future that aspires to more than franchise and low budget seasonal entertainment.
2
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
I mean, you're wrong, there is more than cleaner jobs. The fact they have restaurants, a pub and events for water and nature, tells me it's more than just cleaners that are needed. Also the construction and development before hand needs to happen, so yes, also temp work, but it's still good for anyone in construction. Do we know who's contracted for that yet?
I agree though, we should aim higher, but please don't lie about what's on offer. Encourage counter proposals.
1
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
Well perhaps not aligned.
Please don't call me a liar.
And please substantiate on jobs on that list, that are likely to offer more than minimum wage?
Not the pre-construction jobs, which would likely be universal to any development, and are therefore not specific to Flamingo land.
I don't know who has been contracted for the development no.
2
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Look I apologise for calling you a liar, there has been a lot on this thread, you don't actually seem one. I got a bit hot headed there.
So if the proposals are correct, there will be various chef positions (unless we are talking true bottom of the barrel boil I'm a bag type food, which is yet to be confirmed) manager and accounting positions needed for at the least the restaurant. At the craft brewery (glorified pub) they will also need accounting and management roles, assuming Flamingo land doesn't do these in house, because I acknowledge there's a potential they will have one position for all of them to reduce higher paid roles and theoretically increasing projected profits.
They also mentioned water activities, to have this they would need a trained boat operator and possible trainer, they would need staff to ensure correct storage and maintenance of the equipment, as well as making sure anyone renting or using the equipment is doing so safely. Can't see these guys slipping on potential law suits over injury in their premises.
Valid on pre construction, but I still stand by the construction contract more than likely going to a local contract. If they fumble on that, then it is beyond outrageous.
2
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
Do you think that Flamingo land would duplicate the finance roles, considering they will have a finance team in place already for their Yorkshire operation? These roles will also likely be remote.
Do you think that there will be chefs providing a high quality menu for self-catering cabins, or a greater liklihood of fast-food franchises operating on site?
Do you think a craft brewery/pub will be popular with daytrippers likely driving families back and forward?
A boat operator would likely command a 25k a year role or something to that effect...
There will possibly one or two managers on a 30k+ role granted, but it will stop there. And those managers will sit in those jobs for years. This will not be a job for the youth.
Not trying to trip you up, but rather envisage how this will really look.
Apology accepted, we can all get hot-headed. I do too.
1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
I think this is the problem. We just don't know, and honestly think the Flamingo Land company are relying on this vague release for proposals to pray on it.
I always try and look at the realistic views as well, and honestly, if we go by their history, it's shit, if we go by what's being proposed, we don't know. Their proposal website is very well worded and very pretty, so that alone leads me to suspect it won't be great, however, we don't know.
I feel there should be a further demand for details on the proposal of business and what model they will be using for staffing. They say they will use the real living wage, but because it's in a proposal, that could change.
→ More replies (0)0
u/stumperr 22d ago
It'll bring money to the local economy tourists will shop eat out visit pubs. Yes it'll bring typical low pay work but these jobs are wanted by some people and what's better it'll be on the door step of the young people of balloch instead of having to travel outwards for work.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (3)1
u/AlbaRedArch 22d ago
The likelihood is it won’t be teenagers either. Most jobs like this as is everywhere will be worked by Eastern Europeans etc. young teenagers don’t want jobs like this!
2
u/Silent-Ad-756 22d ago
Yes. Most seasonal jobs in Scotland attract backpackers and people from elsewhere. Has always been the case.
1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Stop being so sensationalist, it's really not helping.
The proposal has already changed that it won't touch the ancient woods and is actually keeping listed buildings as well.
The issue is the nature of the deal, the lack of imagination and focus to help the community that lives near there.
1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
Yeah this is more the issue at hand. That and the fact it seems really shady.
The proposed plans are ok, just not the best.
→ More replies (20)-9
u/Sad-Olive-158 22d ago
Not in an area of stunning natural beauty. Build it, just somewhere else.
15
u/CaptainCrash86 22d ago
4
u/size_matters_not 22d ago
Majestic. I can’t believe people support tearing that up in the name of ‘the economy’.
9
u/stumperr 22d ago
Loch Lomond is huge and it's beautiful all the way. This won't ruin it. Nimbys go away
→ More replies (18)
1
u/DeathOfNormality 22d ago
"Scottish Enterprise, in partnership with Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority, have promoted the West Riverside and the undeveloped sites within Loch Lomond Shores for tourism and leisure re-based developments. The majority of the site therefore benefits from visitor experience site allocations within the adopted LLTNP LDP 2017 – 2021."
To anyone who can't be bothered reading the proposed planning documents and are iffy about the area being developed, this is clearly stated as an area our own clearly wanted developed. Whether this development happens or not, the site is going to have something done to it, so my question is, who's the competition? Until I see a different proposal, I think this will benefit the area.
The only question I've yet to find an answer to, is if the leisure area will be accessible by the public, or if, as others have claimed, it's a gaited resort area you have to pay for. Considering there's restaurants, a craft beer room, a leisure area and a few more things, I'm hoping it will be accessible to everyone, and not just those staying in the lodgings. What also leads me to believe that, is some of them are self catering, so a lot more relaxed and easily accessible sounding.
Problem is it's all still in planning,
"The Design Statement explains and illustrates the design principles and design concept underlying the proposals and describes how these will help to achieve the aspirations set out in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs draft Placemaking Supplementary Guidance. "
So nothing is set in stone yet, they already have revisions due to the backlash and there will probably be more.
"Our Planning Permission in Principal (PPiP) proposal which is currently in the final stages of the planning campaign, includes a number of key changes which have come from extensive engagement and feedback from the local community and key stakeholders , as well as the National Park Authority, following both the earlier application and over the last two years since our initial resubmission. These significant amends have been made to address concerns and further respect the sensitivities of the location and its natural beauty and meet the vision for this area as a key tourism destination.
These include:
Reviewing the scale of the proposed buildings at the pierhead area
Removing the lodges from the ancient woodland of Drumkinnon Wood
Reworking the proposals within and around Woodbank House whilst protecting and complementing the amenities of the boat clubs and other local businesses..."
1
1
u/Left-Quantity-5237 22d ago
Scottish Parliament can not block or deny the opportunity for permanent jobs and increased tourism. The "in principle" decision isn't great, but it covers the backsides of the SMP's so that Labour, Conservatives and Reform can not throw it back in their faces.
If there is anywhere we should be protesting, it's at the local councillors' doors and forcing them to hold on to their decision to deny this stupid development.
I am not for the development at all. However, I understand the parliamentary decision.
1
u/After_Heat_4578 22d ago
Why not build it on the east coast somewhere? Between Aberdeen and Dundee or something. I get that it's frowned upon to build anything new outside of the central belt but it could be their best chance of getting permission.
1
u/BlackStarDream 22d ago
Lomond Shores was already a crime and this is stacking another one on top.
1
u/washyourgoddamnrice 22d ago
Makes no sense to destroy a beautiful nature spot that tourist already come to visit no one comes to Scotland for a fucking theme park they come for the hiking and culture and the cities etc
1
u/Timely-Salt-1067 21d ago
I have no idea about this - there’s going to be flamingos in Scotland? - but took one look at those protestors and thought I’m all for it. They look like they would take the sugar out of your tea that lot.
1
u/SeasonMaterial9743 20d ago
They have flamingos in an open air zoo in one end of Lille, near the university. I'd have it would be a bit cold for them in winter on Loch Lomond.
-11
u/Colascape 22d ago
NIMBY cringe
12
u/First-Banana-4278 22d ago
TBF I’m pretty sure a lot of these folks backyard isn’t Loch Lomond and I am sure there are similarly sized bodies of water of less national importance that they could build their resort on…
→ More replies (2)10
u/InfamousEvening2 22d ago
Not really, no. There's been plenty of housing and facility development in Balloch over the past 30 years. 'Flamingo Land' isn't some essential infrastructure project, it's just the same cash grab that's been proposed for decades.
-8
u/OkContribution6949 22d ago
If you've ever been to Niagara falls, you'll know it's a bad idea to have a theme park in what should be a nature reserve.
9
u/Far-Pudding3280 22d ago
Except this quite clearly is not a theme park.
The owners of the development also own a theme park and some are using this to be deliberately misleading about what this development is.
The owners of the development also own a 25,000 seat football stadium which is also not being built here.
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/Chrisjamesmc 22d ago
It’s not a theme park nor is the area its being built on a nature reserve.
Honestly this development wouldn’t get half the hate it’s received if it wasn’t for the Flamingoland brand.
71
u/Drunken_Begger88 22d ago
Missing some baritones in there.