On Monday 10th November the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) are holding a special board meeting to approve the evidence report for their new Local Development Plan (LDP)for approval by Scottish Ministers.   Sid Perrie, the locally elected member for Balloch who is now off sick due to the actions of the Standards Commission (see here), alerted me to this meeting but when I checked on the 28th October, there was no indication on the LLTNPA’s website such a meeting was to take place in two weeks time. It seems that the LLTNPA doesn’t want anyone to know and although the papers for the meeting on Monday 10th November have now been published (see here), the meeting is online so no-one can go and protest.

While there are dozens and dozens of pages of glossy “evidence”, which would take a couple of days to scrutinise, the meeting is only two hours long.  The reason for that is that board members have been discussing the LDP for some time in private briefing sessions and everything has already been decided. The only purpose of the meeting is to tick a governance box, one of which is that the LLTNPA has assembled sufficient evidence to proceed to the next stage of the LDP.

Given how staff at the LLTNPA had manipulated the last LDP dated 2017-21, which I described in the Flamingo Land Story (see here) and (see here), I have focussed my attention on what the evidence report says about Balloch. This is mainly contained in the West Loch Lomond evidence report (see here).

The section on what consultation has taken place is interesting, not least because it fails to say what has been learned from that:

Given the levels of concern about the Flamingo Land development, attendance by the Balloch and Haldane Community Council hardly looks impressive.  One wonders why other community organisations like Save Loch Lomond weren’t on the list too.  The lack of organisations responding to the topic paper and area summary surveys further suggest there were major failings in the process.

To me that failure is proven by the lack of any reference to the 150,000 plus people who objected to the Flamingo Land Development in Balloch, the most in Scottish history.  What ordinary people think or want to happen simply doesn’t count as evidence.

The LLTNPA attempts to gloss over this by reference to the Balloch and Haldane Local Place Plan. Misleadingly this is described as being “not yet published” and “in process of engagement” when actually consultation is only now about to start:

Although Balloch is the most important gateway to the National Park and the only settlement in the National Park which features in the list of the 20% most deprived communities in Scotland (according to data in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) it has been about the last to get a Local Place Plan.  That appears to have been quite deliberate decision on the part of staff.  Had they allowed the local community to develop their own Local Place Plan, that would have made it much harder for Flamingo Land.  The public should not be allowed to forget that senior staff had kept it secret that they were involved with Flamingo Land while conducting the Balloch charrette (see here).

This glossy extract on the BHCC Place Plan is a good illustration of planning chaos which will allows LLTNPA officials and Scottish Ministers to do whatever they wish:

The Local Place Plan is to sit alongside the charrette, when it should supercede it.  It is also to sit alongside the Pierhead Plan which, as I have previously explained, should have been developed AFTER the Local Place Plan and informed by it (see here). The Pierhead Plan appeared  designed to assist the Flamingo Land development and this was later confirmed by the conditions attached to Scottish Enterprise’s sale of the land there to the LLTNPA (see here).

The section on Community Facilities helps highlight the lack of such facilities in the most deprived area:on West Loch Lomond:

There is no mention in the Evidence Report of the South Loch Lomond Local Development Trust’s attempt to take over the Tourist Information Centre building centre in Balloch, the aspirations of other to take over Drumkinnon or what the impact of losing the Riverside Site, a local park, to Flamingo Land’s chalets would be.  In short there is no evidence of what people actually need or want.

 

 

 

There is no attempt, either,  to explain what sort of “visitor gateway” would make Balloch a thriving place or in what way it is a service hub currently, although this may just be a reference to transport links.  The section on Thriving Places also claims Balloch “has sufficient services for living well locally” – who decided that? –  and goes on to refer to “a lack of opportunities for young people and families” whatever that means.  If when reading this you think of the lack of a football pitch, you might take this as an argument against developing the Riverside Site,  but if as a lack of jobs as a reason for the Flamingo Land development going ahead.  This sort of language is deliberate: you can take out of the evidence plan whatever you want.

The vague statement on the National Park Partnership Plan illustrates what is going on:

Throughout the NPPP development and approval process the LLTNPA Board – with the exception of Sid Perrie – endorsed progressing the major development “already in the pipeline for development” (see here).  That was an indirect reference to  Flamingo Land and is why Sid Perrie quite rightly argued the LLTNPA Board had a conflict of interest when it came to deciding the Flamingo Land Planning Application. It appears now to be what is meant by “Investment that enhances Balloch as the main visitor and transport interchange hub for the National Park”.

While there generally appears to be very little actual evidence in the evidence report, it is noteworthy the LLTNPA is now acknowledging the serious congestion issues on the A82 and Balloch.  A year ago they failed to object to the Flamingo Land planning application on the grounds of the traffic it would attract and consequent congestion and parking problems. That allowed the Reporter, Mr Buylla, to set aside concerns by local people on the impact on their lives.

 

I did not recall “Potentially Vulnerable Area” being mentioned in the Board Report about the Flamingo Land Planning Application so did a word search……………which came up blank!  While the LLTNPA’s main objection to the Flamingo Land site was on grounds of flood risk, it appears it might have been stronger!

In summary, the Evidence report for Balloch lacks evidence.  That is important because it might have helped inform Ivan McKee’s decision about whether or not the Flamingo Land should go ahead. Mr McKee and anyone else can take from it what they want.   That is not an accident, it is how LLTNPA senior management ensure they can justify whatever they do.

I have not had time to consider any other parts of the plan and see if the evidence cited is any better but local communities and visitors BEWARE!