Following my post on the Loch Lomond South Community Development Trust (LLSCDT)’s registration of interest in Scottish Enterprise’s land at Balloch (see here), their accounts were published on 6th July by Companies House (see here). This was the day before the deadline and these were first accounts to appear since the  company was incorporated on 8th October 2024.  On the same day Directors notified Companies House that they had extended the period covered by these accounts from 31st October 2025 to 31st March 2026.

The current Directors have taken advantage of exemptions in company law to present unaudited accounts which effectively consist of a balance sheet.  This shows the LLSCDT had £9070 in assets on 24th March 2026 and no liabilities. Without the profit and loss account, it is impossible to know how much money the public have donated to the LLSCDT and how much it has has raised from other sources since its formation or how much the Directors have spent to date.  They could have raised £100k and spent £90k or raised £9070 and spent nothing – which matters.  Apart from a note which reports they had no employees LLSCDT’s filed accounts therefore shed no light on the activity of the company or its Directors.

LLSCDT’s Articles of Association (AoA), also available from Companies House, state:

The LLSCDT first AGM was held on 27th February and while its AoA requires minutes to be taken, it does not require them to be published -only to be made available to those who request them:

The minutes of the LLSCDT AGM have not been published on their website (see here)but the members present could not have considered accounts for a financial year that was not yet complete.  It appears therefore that the accounts just published will need to be considered at next year’s AGM.

In response to a question from a reader following my post, Lynne Somerville,  who is described on the LLSCDT website as their founder/chair, stated: ‘We have more than 1,000 members, including 647 from the Balloch and Haldane area’.  That is a significant number of interested people who have effectively been denied any meaningful opportunity to consider the accounts.

The  LLSCDT, as a community development trust, is also registered with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR).  From 9th March 2026 trustees of charities have been required to submit their ‘annual report and full [my emphasis] accounts’ and OSCR then publishes this ‘key information about a charity’s registration and finances’ on its website.  The decision by the LLSCDT Directors not to provide profit and loss statements to Companies House when they are now required to submit this information to OSCR makes little sense but their entry on OSCR’s register (see here) shows that to date they have not provided this information.

OSCR’s register also shows that the SLLCDT has not provided the names of their trustees which is  also required by law:

In her comment on my post Lynne Somerville stated:

‘Our decisions have always been made following careful consideration of our legal responsibilities, governance, available resources, professional advice and the changing circumstances surrounding the Balloch site. Those are not matters that can be inferred from public records alone’.

Its quite correct to state not all matters can or should be inferred from public records, but information about who is ultimately responsible for an organisation and its finances are matters of basic governance.

Moreover, as one commentator has put it when advising on company accounts:

‘if you’re actively seeking new shareholder [or member] buy-in or funding [e.government grants} that will allow your company to grow, micro-entity accounts may hold you back’ (see here).

Secrecy will not help the LLSCDT.

The Local Place Plan for Balloch

Lynne Somerville in her comment on my post did not respond to the main point which was to ask why the Directors of the LLSCDT have recently registered an interest in the land owned by Scottish Enterprise at Balloch.  She did, however, express disappointment that I had overlooked the work that the Trust had done on the Place Plan for Balloch and Haldane and sent me a link to the Local Place Plan website (see here). This shows that the Balloch and Haldane Community Council (BHCC), which Lynne Somerville also chairs, had at their meeting on 2nd June agreed to submit the Place Plan to West Dunbartonshire Council for registration. .

I had not seen the final Local Place Plan or known it had been approved but it is far better than I anticipated.  It had started out with an initial consultation last year that completely failed to mention the Flamingo Land development (see here).  The plan has moved from ignoring the elephant in the room to clearly rejecting the whole concept of Flamingo Land, as illustrated by the extract above.  It also articulates a clear alternative vision for the land.  That is most welcome and credit to all involved.

Unfortunately, there appears to have been no publicity about this radical new plan for Balloch from either the LLSCDT or the BHCC and no-one appears to have informed the media. I will consider the proposals in the plan, which is due to be considered by West Dunbartonshire Council in August, in further posts and give these the attention they deserve.

For now, the key point is that 18 actions are listed in the Local Plan and the LLSCDT is listed among the key players for seven of them.  These include the following sites, all of which would be affected if the courts overturn the Scottish Government’s decision to reject Flamingo Land’s planning application:

• the former National Park Gateway Centre;
• Drumkinnon Wood;
• the West Riverside Site and Pier Road;
• the Old Station building (the former tourism information centre) and plaza;
• derelict sites, which include Woodbank House  owned by Flamingo Land).

The week before the BHCC approved the Local Place Plan, the LLSCDT had submitted asset transfer requests to Scottish Enterprise for three of these sites, the former Gateway Centre, Drumkinnon Wood and the West Riverside Site. Having already attempted to register an interest in the Old Station building, it appears that their new transfer requests are linked to their role as a key player for these sites in the Local Place Plan.

If so, that could help break the planning deadlock at Balloch but for this to succeed the LLSCDT will require wide public backing,  much wider than the number of people who responded to the Local Plan (important though their contributions were).  The Directors are not going to get that support without publicising and explaining their intentions.

A good place to start would be this statement from the Local Place plan:

The Scottish Government’s February 2026 decision to uphold the National Park’s rejection of the Lomond Banks commercial leisure proposals represents an opportunity for all of us. It opens the door to a future for Balloch and Haldane which is in tune with the National Park’s statutory aims, national
planning policy, the government’s community wealth building agenda, and community aspirations for sustainable locally-led solutions. Everybody wins.

I shouldn’t have to say it but if they are going to help deliver for the local community and the wider public, the Directors of the LLSCDT need, as a matter of urgency, to put their own house in order and start being much more transparent.   The only reason the proposed Flamingo Land development ever got to where it is today is because of the secret machinations of Scottish Enterprise and the LLTNPA.  The LLSCDT should not repeat those mistakes and won’t out compete public authorities at their own game: it needs to show its different and be open about all it does.