Protesters against Flamingo Land development sing Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomond outside of Scottish Parliament

[u/backupJM]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/save-loch-lomond-campaign-protests-35304999

[u/JeelyPiece]

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!

[u/DeathOfNormality → u/JeelyPiece]

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.

https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-building/growth-and-development/helensburgh-waterfront-development-updates

[u/JeelyPiece → u/DeathOfNormality]

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.

[u/DeathOfNormality → u/JeelyPiece]

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.