In the run up to the National Park’s hearing on their Planning Application on Tuesday 24th September, Flamingo Land appear to have decided to go onto the offensive.  Besides their attempt to discredit West Dunbartonshire Councillors objection to the application (see here) and (here), which I will consider further below, they have been feeding more misinformation to the national media.

Recent coverage in the Daily Record

On 22nd August Andy Miller, Flamingo Land’s Sales Director, accused opponents of muddying the waters through misinformation before doing exactly that himself (see here):

“One of the frustrations we continue to have is of those who have indicated a strong feeling against the development continually put out information that is not true to muddy the waters.

“It’s frustrating because there’s people out there who are getting mixed messages and we want to give them the true picture.

“In particular, there’s a lot of misunderstanding around the history of the piece of land in question.

“It is a brownfield site and it is marked for tourism development.

The Riverside Site is NOT a brownfield site.  It was for a time after the railway shut but was then re-landscaped.  It is now, apart from the buildings at the pierhead,  public open space as anyone who has visited in the last twenty years knows.  Nor is it true that “it is earmarked for tourist development” whatever that is taken to mean  Its true that some of the land owned by Scottish Enterprise and Flamingo Land was identified for development in the Local Development Plan, but a significant proportion of the land included in  the Planning Application – about 40% – has not been earmarked for ANY development.  This includes Drumkinnon Woods and the land across Drumkinnon Bay where Flamingo Land is now proposing to build a boat house and water based activities (which will compete against existing local businesses).

Misinformation or lies?   I will leave it to readers to decide.   While Flamingo Land has been spouting such claims, their partners in the development, Scottish Enterprise have remained silent.  Why hasn’t their Chief Executive, Steve Dunlop, issued a public statement correcting all the misinformation that Flamingo Land have issued about what is a JOINT Planning Application that SE have substantially paid for out of the public purse?  Or has Scottish Enterprise no sense of ethics either?

Flamingo Land boss blasts MSP who helped block Loch Lomond resort in bizarre rant

Andy Miller was followed a few days later (see here) by his boss, Gordon Gibb, the owner of Flamingo Land .   His attack on Ross Greer, appears to have been prompted by a recent letter from the MSP which suggested Mr Gibb should stick to the promise he had made in September 2016:

“if our plans are not welcomed by most of the people in Scotland then we will not proceed further.”

Instead of explaining why he had dropped this commitment, Mr Gibb turned on Ross Greer calling him a “very inexperienced ­politician” who is unqualified to “advise anyone on anything that is important in the adult world”.   In a bizarre rant, the CEO added: “We unreservedly reserve all our rights against you,” before telling the elected politician: “The people of Scotland have not spoken and you certainly don’t speak for them.”

Over 55,000 people have objected to the Planning Application, the most in Scottish History.  If that is not enough for Mr Gibb  – and local politicians understand what that says very clearly – it would be easy enough for him to commission a national opinion poll.   And he could always ask Scottish Enterprise to pay……………..

 

Flamingo Land and traffic

A large part of Flamingo Land’s response to West Dunbartonshire Councillor’s objection to the Planning Application concerns traffic.  The response provides a text book example of a developer trying to muddle the waters.

In response to WDC’s point that the development will increase traffic in an area which suffers congestion, Flamingo Land first points out that neither Transport Scotland nor Council Road Officers objected:

This misses the point.   Officials sometimes – for whatever reason (in this case it appears to be the result of faulty Transport Assessment Methodologies) – reach the wrong conclusions.   That is one reason we have elected representatives, they can bring a welcome reality check.  Anyone who has tried driving along the A82, past Balloch, on a holiday weekend and been stuck in queues, will question the wisdom of attracting  yet more traffic along that road.  Meantime, on such weekends or at special events, as many local people have attested, the village can become gridlocked.

Flamingo Land dismisses this, referring to their own Traffic Assessment which they argue was conducted according to recognised standards:

In plain language, what this says is that at normal (“neutral”)  times – including midweek rush hour for example – the development won’t have any significant impact on traffic.   That again misses the point entirely.  Its the peak periods, such as holiday weekends and special events, that are the issue.

Flamingo Land then half recognise this but claim its not their responsibility to address existing traffic problems:

Once again this misses the point.  The question is how far will the Flamingo Land Development increase traffic in the area?

Interestingly, Flamingo Land say nothing about this in their response to WDC’s objection.  However, in their revised Parking Strategy (see here), lodged on 5th April, they do give an indication of the number of additional cars that will be brought to the area by the development as its currently proposed:

Exclude the 44 places linked to the Park and Ride by the station and that’s 314 extra cars for the Riverside Site.   On top of that there is the provision for Woodbank House:

Take away the 44 Park and Ride from the total and that is still 449 extra cars that are anticipated when accommodation is fully occupied.  That is most likely on popular holiday weekends and special events, precisely those times that Balloch becomes gridlocked at present.

The Parking Strategy, however, makes it clear that this proposed provision may not cover all the extra cars.   For example, there will be day visitors to the rope walks and other attractions proposed for Drumkinnon Woods, to the waterpark and to the “iconic visitor attraction”, whatever that is.   Its because of this that Scottish Enterprise has been negotiating with the owners of Lomond Shores to use some of the parking capacity there:

This demonstrates that WDC Councillors were completely right to conclude that the development, if it goes ahead, can only add to existing traffic problems.  Importantly, they then also concluded that these issues will not be addressed by standard “mitigation measures”:

Flamingo Land’s response to this is to try and muddy the waters:

In plain words, Flamingo Land accuse councillors of getting it wrong because the traffic mitigation measures they propose are only intended to deal with ordinary traffic volumes and were never intended to address the peak periods when severe congestion and gridlock occur!

They then clutch at straws:

and

Why would people drive to Flamingo Land and then leave their vehicles parked for the duration of their stay?    If you intended to stay put, it would make much more sense to come by train.   This  raises the question why 1.5 parking spaces have been allocated to EVERY SINGLE WOODLAND LODGE?

WDC then back up their two substantive points by commenting on the adequacy of Flamingo Land’s Transport assessment and the evidence of what happening locally:

Flamingo Land’s response again tries to muddy the water by claiming that the facts of what is happening on the ground are irrelevant to the Transport Assessment!

As an aside, don’t local people also have a right to travel on “good weather weekends”?   Welcome to the warped world of the would-be new lairds of Balloch.

Flamingo Land then repeat what they said in 3.1.4 (above), that existing travel congestion is not their responsibility:

Amongst all the jargon and red herrings, nowhere is there any acknowledgement by Flamingo Land – nor by their partners Scottish Enterprise for that matter – that in the National Park there is a legal requirement that ALL development to be sustainable.

 

Traffic, the global environmental crisis and the planning system

Cars and traffic – and I am a driver – are central to the global environmental crisis we have created and its solution.   They play a significant role in the amount of carbon we are adding to the atmosphere (both in their operation and manufacture) and cause much pollution.   They have played a key part in making people less active and the epidemic of health problems associated with this and cause much stress (does anyone enjoy being stuck in traffic?).   Addressing these issues will not be easy but we need to start somewhere and, with the Scottish Government’s declaration of a climate emergency,  all our Public Authorities need to grasp the nettle.

There could be no better place for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority Board to show a lead than Balloch.   First, there is already a significant existing problem and great concern locally about the increased traffic levels that would be created by the Flamingo Land development as proposed.  Second, unlike many areas where there are few alternatives to cars,  the basis for a high quality public transport system is already in place, both because of the railway and the boats that operate on the loch.

There is thus no reason why the LLTNPA shouldn’t insist that the starting point for any new tourism associated development on the Riverside and Woodbank House sites is that it  should be effectively car free.  By that I mean any tourism development should not result in any net increase in traffic whether by visitors or staff (some provision would be allowed for people who because of their disabilities cannot travel by public transport).  If people can park their cars outside the hotel or woodland lodges for the duration of their stay, as Flamingo Land suggest, they can travel there by public transport too.  If  Flamingo Land and Scottish Enterprise cannot come up with a set of proposals that are attractive enough to motivate visitors to leave their cars behind and to persuade staff to get to work on foot, by bike or by public transport (45 parking places are proposed for the “service area”)  then the planning application should be refused.

The LLTNPA powers that be, of course, are  likely to claim that they are bound by existing policy – whether standardised transport assessments which require 1.5 car parking spaces for each lodge or the policies contained in the Local Development Plan – and therefore legally they are unable to insist any tourist development should be car neutral.  That, however, would effectively be to ignore the Scottish Government’s declaration of a climate emergency – let’s wait another three years till we do anything!   Moreover, it would also be to ignore the four statutory aims of our National Parks set by the Scottish Parliament.  These include a duty to promote sustainable economic development and make wise use of resources.  Those duties could be called upon to override any existing policies which are no longer fit for purpose.   Given a little will, the LLTNPA could support the objection made by WDC Councillors and refuse the Flamingo Land Planning Application on the grounds it will result in an unsustainable increase in traffic.