I have written a number of posts over the last seven years about the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA’s) involvement in the proposed Flamingo Land development at Balloch, on the south shore of Loch Lomond, but never put the whole story together.  It deserves to be widely known before the LLTNPA Board are due to consider the “Mark III” Flamingo Land planning application (see here) on 16^th September.

While much of the story is well evidenced, how  the LLTNPA first became involved is less clear.  It appears, however, that when Fiona Logan became Chief Executive of 2008, the year of the banking crash, the National Park started to take a more commercial turn.  In 2011 the Herald reported that Wayne Gardner Young, who was involved in  unlawful planning development at Balmaha (see here), had been talking to Ms Logan about a £100m theme park development on the shores of Loch Lomond (see here).  While Balloch was arguably the only feasible site for such a large development, I have not been able to establish that fact or to confirm reports that at some stage Ms Logan visited the Flamingo Land theme park in Yorkshire.

Whatever discussions took place between Scottish Enterprise (SE), the LLTNPA and developers, Ms Logan stepped down as Chief Executive at the end of 2014 and was replaced by Gordon Watson, the Park’s Director of Operations and former head of planning, in January 2015.  Shortly afterwards, the West Riverside site at Balloch was put up for sale by SE in partnership with the LLTNPA:

The sales brief contained numerous references to SE’s partnership with the LLTNPA. This partnership was not only promoting the sale of the West Riverside site, running along the west bank of the River Leven, but other “undeveloped sites within Loch Lomond Shores” owned by SE (including the ancient Drumkinnon Woods included in Flamingo Land’s first planning application).

To have agreed these broad parameters for the development in the sales brief, the LLTNPA must have been in discussion with Scottish Enterprise for some time about the future of the West Riverside site…………..perhaps going back to when Gordon Watson was head of planning?

It is not clear whether it was just staff or whether the LLTNPA board was also “fully aware of SE’s objectives” because the development of the West Riverside site and neighbouring land was not discussed at any public board meeting.  However, since the LLTNPA had developed its proposals for camping byelaws in 2013/14 over the course of 13 secret meetings (see here), one should not exclude the possibility that the then board were involved and secretly approved the whole process.

The LLTNPA’s involvement was not just limited to promoting land owned by SE for development,  the land they owned and leased from SE at the pierhead was also included in the area for sale on the cover of the sales brochure:

This was no an accident as is shown by the content inside the brochure:

The sales brochure shows the LLTNPA had even agreed what purposes the land it owned and leased at the pierhead should be used for:

The LLTNPA owned and leased parts of areas 3 and 4, with 3 being  allocated for a hotel and 4 for an expansion of the retail development at Loch Lomond Shores.

This offer from the LLTNPA to sell its land at the pierhead and the proposals of what to do with it was taken without any public consultation or approval at a public board meeting.  This decision, whether taken by staff alone or by the board in secret, explains why the land the LLTNPA owned and leased at the pierhead was included in Flamingo Land’s first planning application:

But well before the LLTNPA’s land appeared in Flamingo Land first planning application they had been, as SE’s partners, fully involved in the process that led to Flamingo Land’s appointment as preferred developer of the site.  Unlike the sales brochure, which was at one stage publicly available, the information about the selection process was released in response to a number of Freedom of Information requests.

SE’s response shows that the LLTNPA were on the panel which interviewed and scored five developers bidding to buy the “West Riverside” site in August 2015 and evaluated the bid from Flamingo Land as being the best.

Unlike Bilfinger GVA, the LLTNPA’s participation on the panel was not qualified by SE describing them as “advisors”.  That fits with the sales brochure describing the LLTNPA as being partners in the project.

It then took a whole year before SE announced in September 2016 they had appointed Flamingo Land as preferred developer for the site.   It appears that it was sometime during this year that someone in the LLTNPA realised that their level of involvement in the proposals to develop the West Riverside site and appointment of Flamingo Land was inccompatbile with their “quasi-judicial” role as the planning authority which would determine any planning application.  That would explain why after SE announced Flamingo Land’s appointment the LLTNPA tried to distance itself from the role it had played in this:

The claim that SE had appointed Flamingo Land was only partly true, since the LLTNPA had been on the interview panel, as was the claim that SE had kept the LLTNPA informed at each stage of process when actually they had been partners from the start.

Following this I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the LLTNPA asking for any correspondence and information they held about meetings they had had with SE about Flamingo Land’s appointment.  Their response claimed their involvement in the appointment of Flamingo Land had been limited to “reviewing submissions” and the provision of advice:

This claim that the LLTNPA were involved in reviewing submissions for the West Riverside Site was was dishonest as they had been involved in scoring too, as one  of the emails they provided showed!

 

The remainder of the underlined section in the FOI response claims that this involvement by the LLTNPA was limited to tourism considerations, which was also untrue since the LLTNPA had offered up the land it owned and leased at the pierhead to developers, and implied that any involvement of planning staff had been “informal”.  If that was true, there would have been no map in the sales brochure dividing the “Riverside site” into five different development zones!

Another email from Appendix A refers to a meeting between the LLTNPA and SE in September, i.e the month after the interview panel took place, about West Riverside,and almost a year before it was announced Flamingo Land had been appointed preferred developer:

The reference to “Stuart” is significant.  Unless and until the LLTNPA can prove otherwise, that would appear to refer to Stuart Mearns, then head of planning  and now Director of Development at the National Park.  That would make sense as the Agenda for the meeting which took place on 30th September included “planning”:  If, however, the involvement of planning staff was solely in an advisory capacity, as the LLTNPA claimed, why would the head of planning be attending a meeting that was discussing the” proposal overview”, the price of the land – one wonders if that includes the price of the LLTNPA’s land as well as that owned by SE?  – another property leased by the LLTNPA from SE (the Gateway Centre) etc?   Unfortunately, I was unable to get answers to these questions from the LLTNPA since they claimed to have no minute of the meeting or any other record of what was discussed.

A follow up information request to Scottish Enterprise, however, was very helpful and revealed more:

 

Responsibility for “Design Principles” is primarily a planning, rather than a tourism matter, and the fact that the LLTNPA endorsed them before their inclusion in the sales brochure indicates that their planners had been involved for much of the process.

Even more significant, however, is the reference to the meeting on 30th September 2015 being “prior to progressing preferred developer status” and the revelation that this meeting included Flamingo Land.  If it was Stuart Mearns who was present, that is completely damning but whatever the case the fact that  LLTNPA were discussing land price, their own property etc with Flamingo Land shows just how far they were implicated in the proposed development.  Their claims, therefore, to have acted purely in an advisory capacity are false.

The fact that SE subsequently met with Flamingo Land  on two occasions without LLTNPA staff supports the theory that between September 2015 and September 2016 someone at the LLTNPA realised they had undermined due process, backtracked and began to try and cover up what had happened.

The LLTNPA’s conflicts of interest were raised as objections to the first Flamingo Land planning application and referred to in the report that was due to be considered by the LLTNPA board on 24^th September 2019 (before the application was withdrawn at the last moment):

 

The Committee Report considered these conflicts of interest as follows:

The first paragraph on ownership failed to mention the fact that the LLTNPA owned some of the land at the pierhead included in the planning application boundary or explain why the LLTNPA had failed to respond, as landowner, to an application that would affect their land.  That this was wrong is proven by estates staff, who incidentally now work under Mr Mearns, having submitted a response to the current planning application outlining their concerns about the potential impact of the Flamingo Land development on the LLTNPA’s land (see here).

The second paragraph attempts to claim the LLTNPA were on the interview panel in an advisory capacity in relation to tourism considerations contrary to all the evidence provided above.

After these claims were challenged, along with complaints about how they had managed the Hunter Foundation planning application at Ross Priory (see here), the LLTNPA issued a further  news release in January 2021:

All the claims in the highlighted paragraph are wrong: the decision to appoint Flamingo Land as preferred developer was not just taken by SE;  the “former [ie since retired] member of the tourism team did not just provide “informal tourism advice” to SE before their decision but was a member of the interview panel;  and Stuart Mearns, as head of planning, appears to have attended a meeting which agreed the proposal.

Where the LLTNPA is right is where they state that Planning Authorities must take an objective view when assessing proposals. Rather than acknowledging they had failed to do that in respect to the West Riverside application,  Gordon Watson the Chief Executive tried to cover this up.

I submitted complaints about this news release to James Stuart, then convener of LLTNPA board, in 2021 and then to Dr Heather Reid, who replaced him as convener, in December 2023.  In both instances I requested the complaints be investigated by the board, rather than by staff as per the LLTNPA’s  complaints procedure, as no member of staff should be expected to investigate their Chief Executive.  Both Mr Stuart and Dr Reid passed the complaint to staff, ultimately managed by Mr Watson, to respond.

Extract from complaint 2021-001 response:

 

It is not clear what content was checked but, instead of an investigation, the staff member referred to the 2016 news release and used information from that, which I have shown to be false, to justify the claims in the news release that was subject of my complaint.  There was no attempt to check the claims in the first news release against the facts or against information the Park had already released to me under FOI.  The claim that just because something has been on the public record for five years it is true is bunkum.

Responsibility for this fundamental failure in governance in my view lies not with the (nameless) investigator of the complaint but James Stuart who decided it was appropriate to ask someone to investigate their own boss.  Mr Stuart still sits on the Strategic Advisory Group of Scottish Forestry (see here).

On the same day I received the official response to my complaint, I also received an email from Mr Stuart accusing me of causing distress to staff by submitting this complaint and in which he said he would not communicate with me again.  While I potentially could have tried complaining to the Public Service Ombudsman, what I should have done is written the story I am writing now.

Since this is a matter of FALSE public record which is pertinent to the current planning application last year I decided to bring the attention to the new Convener of the LLTNPA, Dr Heather Reid, as part of my attempt to make her aware of other governance failures relating to the Cononish goldmine.  I did not even get an acknowledgement of my complaint from Dr Reid and she, like James Stuart, handed the investigation to a member of staff ultimately managed by Gordon Watson.  Their response consisted of two lines in letter that was primarily about the Cononish goldmine:

 

 

Instead of an investigation that looked at the facts – I had provided Dr Reid with much of the information I have presented here – the Park supplied a statement from a nameless individual stating they were  “satisfied with the accuracy of the statement attributed to the Chief Executive”.  Note how the statement is only “attributed” to Gordon Watson, leaving the door open for someone else to take the rap if ever attempts are made to hold him to account.

 

The implications of LLTNPA staff involvement for the Flamingo Land application

Planning authorities are supposed to be impartial and determine planning applications objectively, according to planning policy.  Gordon Watson, the Chief Executive of the LLTNPA, was quoted in the Herald on Saturday in their excellent coverage of the Flamingo Land planning application as making that very claim (“Authority will consider local views before making a decision says Park chief):

“I want to offer my assurance that due process is being followed to the letter and I would strongly urge those with conflicting views to respect that process”. 

What I hope this post has shown is that those assurances from Mr Watson are worthless.  Whatever the report to the Board Meeting on 16^th September states and recommends, no-one can have faith in its objectivity or the fairness of the process leading up to it.  That is because of the backing senior staff, who are still in post, gave to the development, their partnership with SE to appoint Flamingo Land as preferred development and the way they have then tried to cover this up and have been allowed to do so by two conveners of the LLTNPA board.

What needs to happen if the LLTNPA want to take a sound decision in planning terms and not be open to legal challenge is a full investigation into staff backing for the development along. That should entail Gordon Watson, Stuart Mearns and any other staff that have been involved being excluded from any further participation in the planning and decision-making process.  If there is no-one left in the planning department left to draft and approve the content of the report to the board, the LLTNPA should ask to “borrow” professional planners from another (uncompromised) planning authority to assess the application against the policies in National Planning Framework 4.

Instead of taking the opportunity of my complaint to exclude Mr Watson and Mr Mearns from the process, the current Convener, Dr Heather Reid, has handed them even more power. The proposed revisions to the LLTNPA Code of Conduct presented to the board in June effectively limited what any board member could say about the Flamingo Land application (see here).  As a consequence board members have made it almost impossible to sort out the process before the planning meeting on 16th September.

To compound the error, Dr Reid then asked the board by email to hand over all arrangements for the  meeting on 16^th to staff (see here), i.e Mr Watson and Mr Mearns, the very people who cannot be trusted because of their role in the process.

It is important to stress that none of these points or their past history mean that Mr Watson and Mr Mearns will recommend approval of the planning application on 16^th September.  Both are likely to blow with the political wind and recent statements from park staff that no decision has yet been taken in this case are probably true. What will have happened is that the officer working on the report will have been asked to draft it in a way which finely balances the arguments for and against; this then allows senior managers to decide which way to turn at the last minute

This account of how LLTNPA staff were involved in developing plans with Scottish Enterprise for the wider Riverside Site and the subsequent appointment of Flamingo Land is however, only half the story.   The second part, which will follow, is how the LLTNPA manipulated the wider development planning process and excluded the local community in order to facilitate the development.