Meeting of the Parliament 11 June 2025
In this short debate, I will give voice to many of my constituents who have raised concerns over the reporter’s decision on the Lomond Banks application. I do not represent the Balloch area, but my Maryhill and Springburn constituents who have contacted me want to ensure that their voices are also heard. They see the potential development at Balloch as nationally significant, and I agree.
Along with many others, my constituents have concerns about the proposed development’s scale, the impact of potential flooding, the loss of ancient woodland, traffic and the wider impact on the local area. They are right to have concerns, but they do not believe that the report has adequately addressed them. Having read the 80-page document issued by the reporter—it took some going, let me tell you—after he arrived at his decision, I think that it is fair to say that, although it is detailed, it is not drafted to make it easy for interested parties to consider its findings in a speedy and accessible fashion. I know that the findings need to be detailed, but they also need to be accessible and straightforward for readers, who are not necessarily always planning professionals or experts. Ensuring confidence that a robust decision has been arrived at transparently is important for the integrity of any planning system, and it is reasonable to say that confidence is quite low among many.
Given the clear national interest and the substantial widespread concerns, the Scottish Government is correct to call in the plans. Doing so is an important check and balance in the system, and it is required in this instance.
Another group of people who have reached out to me and other parliamentarians—this is really quite important—is the community around Balloch. There appears to be a complete disconnect between many members of that community and the developers. Community buy-in is hugely important, but it appears to be missing, which is a significant weakness for our national park, as well as the developer.
I was born and brought up in the Vale of Leven, which is only a stone’s throw from Balloch, so I am particularly disappointed at the lack of buy-in. In his findings, the reporter said:
“The planning authority’s reasons for refusal raise no objections to the principle of developing the appeal site for the types of development that are proposed, and the report to the planning authority’s Board advised its members that the proposed development, both within the areas that have been allocated for development in the LDP and elsewhere, is supported by the LDP.”
That is important. I see from the national park website that the new local development plan is being developed. I hope that that will involve meaningful strategic community consultation.
It would perhaps be far better to allow the new local development plan process to run its course before taking a decision on a new development of such significant scale. The reporter noted that there were no significant objections from the community when the LDP was first drafted, but it was drafted to cover 2017 to 2021, and consultation started long before 2017. A decade had probably passed before the community was properly consulted on the matter. Asking a community whether it is okay to expand tourism through the development of a high-quality amenity is very different from proposing a development of such sheer scale.
I will raise two specific concerns. First, my reading of the 80-page document is that the reporter appears to be confident about active travel infrastructure. Yes, there would be a monorail close to Balloch train station, but we all know that people would bring cars and use Lomond Banks as a gateway to the Highlands, and the monorail would not take visitors to Luss, Arrochar or Inveraray.
Secondly, much has been made of the destruction of ancient woodland, and I am genuinely unclear as to whether those concerns have been appropriately addressed. The developer has taken control of Drumkinnon wood, which is not part of the proposed development but beside it, and I am concerned that it could be used for compensation and enhancement when woodland and biodiversity are lost elsewhere, if I have captured the report’s findings accurately. I am bemused as to how not developing on ancient woodland can be considered to be compensation and enhancement—surely that is just the status quo.
We need to consider whether the current proposals are in Balloch’s interest or the national interest.
16:35