Hansard

When Loch Lomond and the Trossachs became Scotland’s first national park in 2002, it was after 60 years of campaigning. Generations of Scots wanted to protect its unique geology, history and beauty, and that still applies today. There is, after all, only one Loch Lomond, and we are the custodians of our environment for future generations.

When Sarah Boyack was the Minister for Transport and the Environment, the Parliament passed legislation to create national parks. I spoke in the stage 1 debate. We recognised then that there was no contradiction between protecting the environment and boosting the local economy, but we made it clear that, if there was a conflict, the principle of conserving the park’s natural and cultural heritage came first.

Drawing on those principles, and considering the expert planning opinion on the application, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority made a unanimous decision to reject the bid from Flamingo Land for a resort in Balloch. Flamingo Land appealed the decision, and I have to say that, in all my 25 years in the Parliament, the reporter’s decision to grant the appeal and overrule everyone else was, frankly, extraordinary.

It is not often that an MSP lodges a motion and the Scottish Government caves in before a word has been spoken; I have certainly never experienced that before. Perhaps it was in anticipation of the quality and persuasiveness of the speeches to come that the Scottish National Party Government changed its mind. Perhaps it was because it counted the thousands of emails that were sent to ministers by people from my constituency and across Scotland and realised how angry people were about the proposed development. Perhaps it was because the SNP Government realised that the Scottish Labour motion had the support of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Defeat for the Government was a certainty, so it sought to get ahead of the Parliament.

The Government will of course say that it was none of the above, so let us explore what has changed. Three weeks ago, the Lomond Banks proposal was raised by Ross Greer during topical question time. I, too, asked the minister, Ivan McKee, to call the application in, as did Pam Gosal. In response, he said:

“I have no intention of recalling the appeal”.—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; c 5.]

Two weeks ago, the First Minister also refused to intervene. Yesterday, there was a spectacular U-turn. Now, according to the minister, there are “issues of national significance” that justify the call-in. What are those issues? What has changed during the past two weeks?

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs remains an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is Scotland’s first national park and the jewel in our crown; that has not changed during the past two weeks. The national planning framework 4, which was published in 2023 and voted for by this Parliament, notes problems with flooding across Scotland. Part of the area for development is subject to flooding. That has not changed in the past two weeks.

I would be happy to take an intervention from the minister so that he can explain what has changed. No? I can see that I am not going to get anywhere with that, so let me welcome the SNP’s U-turn and tell members why the application should be called in for ministerial determination. First, the decision being made by a single unelected reporter—no matter how good he might be—is a democratic affront. The national park board, which was appointed by ministers, and some members of which were elected by their local community, was unanimous in its rejection of the application.

The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency—one of the Government’s own expert agencies—recommended rejection because of flooding. The Woodland Trust, the National Trust for Scotland and countless other expert bodies all rejected the application. Ross Greer’s petition of 155,000 people rejected it. My local survey of 3,000 households in Balloch, Jamestown, Tullichewan, Levenvale and Haldane saw 65 per cent of local residents rejecting the application. All that local knowledge and expert opinion surely counts for something. The Scottish Government appointees on the board or the planning officers at the national park should surely be listened to, with their years of experience.

I will give a small local example. I invite the minister and his colleagues to come out and visit on a sunny day at the weekend. If they were to try getting up Loch Lomondside in a car, they would be stuck on the A82 all the way from Milton at the start of my constituency in Dumbarton right up to and beyond the Stoneymollan roundabout, and it would be the same in reverse. There is also the McDonald’s roundabout on the A811, which backs up on to the A82, causing gridlock. If you live locally, as I do, you stay at home or head in the opposite direction if the sun is shining, because the A82 becomes a car park, with traffic at a standstill. Adding 250 to 280 additional cars a day would add to the existing infrastructure problems.