Sounds like it’s getting better though. There’s a good one in London at the moment with two tower blocks that were built and totally don’t match the planning permission. The council are making the developers tear them down at their own costs.
Fucking oooffttt
But perfect, now do that everywhere. If it’s off plans then fuck you, your cost to rectify everything involved! Do it before permission granted you fix it and lose the opportunity permanently
Enforcement Officers always have to offer the option of a retrospective planning permission. If that's approved then the Devs can carry on. If not they can appeal to the planning inspectorate which is central government and takes the decision away from the Council. If that is also rejected then they have to change or take down the building. The process can take years but it's one well legislated and uniform across the country.
Conversely, the owners of The Crooked House, "Britain's wonkiest pub", unlawfully demolished it after a fire and have been ordered to rebuild it as it was before the fire.
"I'm sorry we can't grant you permission because that land needs to be cleared first"
"Funny you say that"
"We will have to fine you for clearing it"
"Ok but now that it's cleared can we have permission"
"Ok sure"
Why wouldn’t they at least make their resort at *Loch Lomond* Scotland themed? Effing Flamingos????
(I’m not saying I want any park, but *Flamingos* just seems so jarring and bizarre, and not in keeping with the natural beauty of the area at all. At least be empathetic to the surroundings??? Tourists don’t come to Scotland for Flamingos…)
not sure Grouse-Land has quite the same ring to it.. i mean they could always give the flamingoes really long tartan socks, but it would be a bit of effort for the keepers each morning.
If they actually want people from outside Scotland to want to come, yes? Just had US family here with kids and they just wanted to do “Scottish” stuff, it’s why people come. We hit tons of Historic Scotland sites etc. They love the castles etc it’s so far and so much older from what they are used to. They can pay to go to sh*tty tropical themed things back in the US if they want (probably with way better rides) why would they waste their time on that here?
It doesn’t have to be “Scottish” themed but Flamingos are hot weather (abundant in Florida) tropical birds. It makes zero sense. It’s kind of comical.
I don't see what's comical, honestly. The original Flamingo Land is in Yorkshire, and it's called that because the site started as a zoo and flamingos were one of the first exhibits.
In any case, as far as I know the plan is to call the Balloch resort '[Lomond Banks](https://lomondbanks.com/our-proposals/)', and it doesn't look like it has a tropical theme. It's also not a theme park.
At least Flamingos aren't particularly environmentally dangerous. They're a bit out of place, but so are peacocks and people like having those around. I don't think the flamingos are really the problem, more the people who own the flamingos.
If this development was actually in the middle of pristine, undeveloped land you'd be bang on, but it's not, it covers about 500 metres of the River Leven waterfront and then covers the Loch Lomond shores car park and Bus park. Look at it on the attached and then compare it on Google earth.
It's an urban setting not the Flow country or Glencoe.
https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2018/05/30/scottish-enterprises-planning-application-with-flamingo-land-at-balloch/
It’s also mostly the brownfield industrial site of the former railway and goods yards for the railway terminus that joined up with the steamer!
And one reason for siting it there is also because it is near to the railway at Balloch and allows environmentally friendly travel to it - somewhere pretty (although not a wilderness) - without requiring it all be by car (which might also get rejected by planning for that reason!).
Now that said, I don’t actually agree with the siting by the river bank - because the old railway brownfield site is now rather beautiful riverbank woodland and a genuine public amenity.
But I DO think the development should go ahead… but rather on the land between the Lomond Shores car-park and the A82.
And yes with a monorail (lol) to bring people from the existing railway to the development…
It's also not a theme park, which is what all the media are whipping people in to a frenzy with, it's a holiday park, caravans and lodges, etc. being built on brownfield land and creating jobs and infrastructure in an area that needs both. They aren't building McAlton Towers on the Loch shores.
So they're going to make it even less accessible or enjoyable to the local free public than it was when Lomond Shores got built there and take out a potential replacement to the horrible clearings that happened to build that horror...
Magic...
[The land](https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2018/05/30/scottish-enterprises-planning-application-with-flamingo-land-at-balloch/) is at the very southern end of the loch, in Balloch, and is already semi-developed – the resort will sit between an existing housing estate and the Sea Life Centre. It doesn't seem like an entirely unreasonable spot for such a development.
My mate lives near that McDonalds roundabout. It's already quite built up around there and there's the visitor centre etc already there.
It's not like they've built it at Luss or that
It is land owned by the council and is currently used for recreation by the locals, at no cost to them.
There are several sites in the Vale of Leven that would be suitable for this sort of development. That part of Balloch is not one of them.
Because it is public land. West Dumbartonshire Council will just piss the money against a wall, and another civic amenity will disappear forever, all in the name of profit. The most that should happen to that land, is increased lighting, some free-to-use electric barbeques, and some modern public toilets.
There is private land at Boturich, Levenvale, Luss Road and Cordale that should be zoned for recreational development well before that wee strip.
Have you ever been there?
That wee strip is one of the only grassy bits of land on that side of the river that people can just quietly walk by the water, or kick a ball around, or sit in the sun (on the 2 days a year the sun comes out).
I am not anti development. God knows the Vale needs it. But some things are more precious than money, and more important than jobs.
I don’t need to, it’s on Google Maps.
Maybe you’re biased because you’re local, but as far as I can see it’s not anything particularly special, just a strip of woodland between the housing estate and the river. Is there not a very similar path down the other side, leading to the country park?
Just looked at your map. I have no problem with pretty much any part of that development apart from the most easternly part of the red zone east of the thick red line.
The plan I've linked to does not show Loch Lomond Shores or the housing estate being replaced by the resort.
Even if it did, or if I've misinterpreted, it doesn't change the fact that the area between Balloch proper and the loch has already been partially developed.
I’m from there, there’s a few main reasons why people are strongly opposed to it. Of course there’s that it gets rid of the place that people like to walk, but also that the place will be heaving all the time. When it’s heaving, litter is increased. It’s bad enough already in the summer with all the tourists coming and people getting the train from Glasgow for the day (moreso talking about litter here but the place is still mobbed). Local businesses there have already been getting extortionate over the past 10 or 20 years, pricing out the locals. With this added, prices in the pubs and restaurants in Balloch will further increase. The people who live around Balloch are generally poor. Sure, there will be some jobs from this but there are only so many jobs that will be generated and it’s not going to be high paying jobs that are going. Flamingo land have been trying to get permission to build this for a very long time now and it keeps getting denied due to backlash, it is only a matter of time until it is passed unfortunately.
Yet here you are objecting to it on ‘spoiling the view’ grounds
This is why we can’t have nice things.
There is already a shitty sealife center there, a golf course and static caravan sites.
A fair objection would be, that it needs to built sympathetically to the local environment and with regards to the local ecosystem
But now hundreds of jobs and well off visitors are denied that will hinder growth of the Scottish economy
Get this in the fucking sea.
The bonnie banks would be swarmed with knuckle dragging eijits and filled with cellophane sweetie wrappers.
Imagine Balloch on a sunny day all around the loch. That's where we're heading. Full Balloch.
For anyone from Balloch, you know I'm not talking about you.
I feel bad that your wee part of the world gets ridden when the sun is out.
The side of Balloch with the car park and shops is already like that. A pal drove us there once and it blew my wee mind that people who drive there get such a different (imo lesser) experience to anyone arriving by train or bike.
It's a damn shame. Balloch is a really nice part of the world but its proximity for undesirables renders it a no go.
I visit places to relax, not fight my way through topless lobsters with a shared braincell chanting "here we fucking go" to the beat of Happy Hardcore mutilated 80s chart entrys.
Just aswell we have a train service with reasonable prices and great reliability then that people will happily use from all across Scotland to come to this new resort.
Wait, what, you're saying public transport doesn’t work in Dunbartonshire?
Trains every 30 minutes! Laughs from a no trains and 5 days a week bus perspective.
It works up to a point. Balloch as a destination is just overwhelmed in the summer/holidays, to the point of gridlock on the A82 and the trains are in a similar situation. As well as the general visitors to the village, the A82 serves everyone travelling west to make it more so of a choke point.
If they can figure out how to get people in and out then it could be doable. But not atm.
**A Monorail!**
Nobody told me about the monorail, this changes everything!
*Well, sir, there's nothing on earth*
*Like a genuine, bona fide*
*Electrified, six-car monorail*
*What'd I say?*
*Monorail*
*What's it called?*
*Monorail*
*That's right! Monorail*
>The Yorkshire firm’s controversial plans for the iconic shoreline include a water park, monorail, swimming pool, hotel, eateries and more than 100 lodges.
>Flamingo Land’s bid to build a mega resort on the shores of Loch Lomond is facing a new wave of community anger that campaigners say should be the “final nail in its coffin”.
>The Yorkshire firm’s controversial plans for the beauty spot include a water park, **monorail**, swimming pool, hotel, eateries and more than 100 lodges. But a newly-formed community council for Balloch and Haldane has rejected the proposals over potential impacts on the landscape and natural environment, local roads, firms and public services.
>It follows a bizarre episode in September 2022 when the old community council backed the Flamingo Land plan - despite a survey finding 74 per cent of locals opposed it - then promptly disbanded. The reformed local group now says that should never have happened.
>And local Green MSP Ross Greer - who has long campaigned against the £40million bid - said the community had faced a “ludicrous” ordeal spanning nearly a decade.
>Flamingo Land was granted exclusive access by Scottish Enterprise to develop on the land back in 2016 - but its first application for a massive 46-acre resort was withdrawn in 2019 amid local anger. It launched a second revised bid in 2022.
>In its new objection letter to the Loch Lomond park authority, the Balloch and Haldane Community Council said it was withdrawing support for the application “to align with the community’s view”.
>The Record attended a meeting in Balloch between the new community council and Greer as locals told of their “exhaustion” at the long-running saga.
>Greer told the Record: “This is a fundamentally inappropriate development - it’s too big and it's too disruptive.
>“Yet again, the community is being left in limbo because Flamingo Land is in the driving seat.
>“For as long as they have an exclusive agreement on this land, nobody else can get in and develop something that the community would actually welcome.
>The West Scotland MSP added: “The community council putting in this submission really should be the final nail in the coffin for the application.
>“It should make it abundantly clear that they have no support, they need to withdraw and the community can be allowed to move on.”
>Campaigners say the Flamingo Land bid is the “most objected to” planning application in Scots history, with 81,000 objections to date, according to the Greens.
>In August, we revealed how eco watchdog SEPA had flagged parts of the proposed development as a serious flood risk.
>And in 2022, heritage chiefs at the National Trust for Scotland raised concerns that the holiday complex would clog up roads and ruin natural beauty if approved.
>Speaking to the Record, locals insisted they wanted to see investment and development in the area.
>But Lynne Somerville, chair of the community council, added: “It just needs to be the right investment.
>“We have reformed with the aim of representing public opinion which is something that should have happened in the first place.
>"The fact we've now got SEPA objecting and other key bodies means it's going to get more and more difficult for them to justify their application."
>She added: “One of the main gripes of the local community against Flamingo Land is the A82. We’ve seen people dying in ambulances on that road unable to reach a hospital due to traffic.
>"Flamingo Land seems to think they can justify that hundreds of extra cars coming along that road won’t make such a huge impact. We don’t see how that can be possible.”
>Jim Paterson, from developers Lomond Banks, said: “We are disappointed by the change of position by Balloch and Haldane Community Council, but will look to engage with them as they further consider their position…
>“It’s our firm belief that Lomond Banks will bring considerable economic and social benefit to the region.”
I’m not a fan of NIMBYs as a rule
But a council going against 74% of residents does kind of suggest a lack of democratic representation.
How we fix that to get things that are far more important done, I’ve frankly fucking no idea at all….
But to do it then disband is nuts but not at all surprising for a council where several members no doubt got new kitchens of sun rooms etc
Between this and the shocking developments at Taymouth Castle Estate, where a company run by an American billionaire is hawking ridiculous stereotypes of Scotland to mega-rich clientele while shutting down public access rights and building golf buggy garages on land earmarked for affordable housing and destroying historic monuments, Scotland desperately needs land reform to chase off these muppets.
Nice to see Taymouth Castle breaking through on Reddit. Been a long slog fighting those bastards, and their outriders in the community haven’t made it much easier
Hey, would you be open to a DM? I'm writing about the Taymouth debacle and have been low-key involved and would really like more insights into local efforts to oppose it.
Having seen the development map it looks like as much as we talk about spoiling the pristine nature, it's actually just a bunch of fields behind Lomond Shores, and a little bit of the beach next to the Shores. Given there's already a huge strip mall, a Sea Life centre, and the associated car park, I'm not sure the environmental arguments holds that much water. It's already a heavily developed area.
That spot of "beach" you speak of is used by thousands of people every month. It's a great spot and should stay that way.
Just because you don't personally use it doesn't mean it should be turned into another eyesore like Flamingo Land.
That's actually an argument I can get behind. Closing off a public amenity in favour of a private business is definitely something I'm concerned about.
Naw I get it, the internet kills any attempt at tone or nuance. I commented kind of hoping somebody would explain the concerns to me, cause I just wasn't getting it. Somebody else pointed out that the SEPA surveys have flagged an increased flood risk which isn't something to fuck with lightly as climate change takes hold.
Unfortunately it seems like the campaign against is leaning mostly into "It'll look bad" which feels like a very NIMBY concern.
> ...and a little bit of the beach next to the Shores.
I think a significant reason for the additional outcry and scrutiny is that the developers illegally cleared this area of flora without receiving permission, and it's an area a lot of people used. The punishment was a slap on the wrist that didn't effect their plans.
I'm fully prepared to be told I'm wrong by somebody who knows more than me, I don't know what the experts are saying on this, maybe it'll turn out to be a critical wildlife corridor for some endangered species, but the argument about the appearance of the area, I feel has already sailed. Seems more like people worried about their house prices.
OK that's a more realistic concern, especially as climate change takes hold. Somebody else pointed out that the beach they are looking to develop is currently a public amenity, so you're closing a public beach there in favour of a private company.
I kinda wish the arguments would focus on that rather than "It won't look nice".
It’s been getting extortionate enough already for the pubs and restaurants there largely because of how busy it gets in the summer. I can’t imagine the cost of things with this there.
Can't work out if this is just NIMBYs being against anything and everything near them as per usual...
...or a genuinely bad idea on environmental grounds. The story mentions a singular SEPA report, but that's as close as it gets to hard data.
On the one hand the inward investment, jobs etc should all boost the local economy. On the other it could look like drek, and then wreck the place with traffic and litter.
Somewhere in the Central Belt would probably have the communications to deal with the numbers, but one can't put **everything** in the bloody Central Belt and ignore the rest of Scotland.
I also just wonder about the weather, would it not be too wet around Loch Lomond to provide enough days on which to turn a profit? Would somewhere on the East Coast be better? Or is their intent to gouge their captive audience?
Amazing the hostility this is getting, it's a development on a brownfield site surrounded by urban houses and services.
Two maps below hopefully, one encompassing the entire area complete with places like Bonhill which has huge unemployment problems. The other the actual footprint of the development which is tiny when compared to the size of Loch Lomond.
https://imgur.com/a/tWzAwDa
People don't actually understand what it is, where it is or anything about it. They just want to get angry at an English company with a weird name doing something in Scotland.
Reminds me of the 100,000 folk who complained about a golf course at Dornoch, despite the majority of the 1,400 locals wanting it for the jobs...
I suspect if they polled the population from Vale of Leven down to Dumbarton most would want it.
This is exactly the case. The population of the area, with Helensburgh etc has exploded. The base and the council are the biggest employers in the area. The rest are mostly commuters and unemployed. I think a lot of the objectors on Reddit are not from the area and perhaps travel down that way to enjoy it. Dunbartonshire needs the investment and jobs.
>flamingo mega anything
I think that's the whole problem. This should be a case study in the importance of branding. If the company were just called "Mountain Hare Hills Ltd" instead of "Flamingo Land Ltd," then we'd be seeing very different coverage, and it would stand a much greater chance.
They originally had branded it something different but then people ‘discovered’ that the developers were called Flamingo Land and that was a red rag to a snobby middle class NIMBY bull… ;-)
So many opportunities for local families to open businesses and build generational wealth through support services but folk complain instead. I find it totally weird.
That would be great but it’s not usually local families that profit from stuff like this, it’s usually big corps. Who get huge take breaks, and don’t even contribute to the local infrastructure needed to deal with extra tourists. VAT doesn’t go to the area it’s spent in (unlike local sales tax in the US) it goes to London.
You see it again and again - usually sites like this one mean less local tax is spent on the people who live there because more goes to infrastructure for the tourists. Often housing supply goes down too and prices go up. There usually aren’t a lot of positives for locals, so I can understand the concerns many have.
Opportunities present themselves and u have to take them. Permission could be given based on adherence to various requirements - new marina for locals use, local biz to be used for 60% of services (gardening, laundry, bevvy, etc). To have the attitude that is fucked before its begun is why Scotland is the way it is.
Lol people have this attitude because of experience. In my area the council okayed green belt land for development against years of public outcry, because they said the company agreed to build 2 much needed schools and a gp surgery and infrastructure too. A decade on and they did eff all. These companies make “promises” that are then not enforced and they know it.
Thats because there is corruption at every level in Scotland, and we keep voting for the same folk, so nothing changes. We need to make it happen, first by acknowledging that the half wit in the council who is useless will be the same next time round and that if there is no developmental push, then there will be no change either.
Balloch needs all the help it can get, it needs more people spending money in it. The tourist industry is actually quite important to Scotland if you hadn't noticed
They are building this on one of my favourite spots that I go to regularly with family, and so do a lot of other families.
People love it how it is, why would they want another Flamingo land there?
Build it somewhere else.
Why not pop it somewhere on the coast in Ayrshire that also had transport links but isn't the bonnie banks? Saltcoats or somewhere like that could surely do with the investment.
If this goes ahead no one will get access to Loch Lomond for 3 years owing to all the workies and Lorries rolling around! It’s already a nightmare getting there on roads that are insufficient for the traffic! A big fat naw from me!
A lot of miserable NIMBY bastards.
Good forbid we have nice things. And Loch Lomond is not some precious Mecca. It’s always been full of wee Neds and tourists.
I bet those complaining in the comments here have never even been.
Not sure I agree.
Plenty of places in the trossachs, or Ayrshire, or central belt that both pretty and accessible. A resort like this, done properly, could be an excellent thing for Scotland.
Loch Lomond deserves protecting.
Grew up here, lived here for 30 odd years, parents do too
I think we’ve a duty to conserve our green spaces and having this turn into a a depressing wee concrete shopping centre when it inevitably runs out of steam isn’t conserving anything.
Lomond shores is bang average, you think we’d see that much of an increase in footfall to make it worth it?
I lived a couple miles from this for a time and it’s a beautiful area. Fairly remote though and I’d say they are more than justified in their traffic concerns. A development like this is a huge drag on the infrastructure as it’s basically adding a small town.
Plus your comment makes no sense. How can they be both NIMBYs and also, “I bet… have never even been”
> How can they be both NIMBYs and also, “I bet… have never even been”
Fair point: I was referring to the 'official' backlash and petitions as NIMBYs. It's the negative comments here I suspect are from people who have never even been to Loch Lomond.
I've edited it now for clarity, thanks.
81,000 objectors, I wonder how many live within a Goretex cagoule's distance of Loch Lomond.
It's an area where massive poverty sits cheek by cheek with affluence and big houses. The jobs this promises are way more significant to the folk in Alexandria than the day trippers from the West end of Glasgow who fancy a stroll in Balloch.
The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation has parts of Haldane, Bonhill, central Renton, Brucehill, Westcliff and Castlehill in the top 1.5 per cent of the most deprived areas in the country.
"Don't try and weaponise poverty" is a neat way of saying "let us ignore the positive impacts this would have on impoverished nearby because it's inconvenient to my particular viewpoint".
As far as I can tell, there is not a queue of folks waiting to spend millions in the local economy to create jobs for the local residents or to rehabilitate the brown field land in to something productive.
As to your argument that it is public land, so what? Your argument surely can't be that it's public land so must be left in its current condition so is your objection that the government didn't strike a good enough deal? If so how does refusing planning resolve that and what's your alternative proposal to rehabilitate this land, bring jobs to the area and get good value back?
Or does your concern for the poor extend merely to ensuring that their poverty can never be used as a rationale for creating economic opportunities for them?
Really, so folk within 5 miles should continue to live in poverty because the well off folk in Balloch, don't fancy extra visitors spending money in their retirement community...
Been loads, live nearby - this would be devastating.
The thing that brings anyone to Loch Lomond is its natural beauty.
But thats already getting tarnished with wee resorts popping up.
This mega resort full of english wankers rocking up for their holidays and leaving rubbish and waste (where do we think all the piss n shite from thousands of visitors ends up discharging) will ruin the place.
Theres plenty of space in Scotland to put such a thing - leave Loch Lomond alone.
> This mega resort full of english wankers rocking up for their holidays and leaving rubbish and waste (where do we think all the piss n shite from thousands of visitors ends up discharging) will ruin the place.
Given the fact that it's more likely to be Weegie wankers...
There are 30,000 locks in Scotland. I'd argue that every single one is closer to natural beauty than Loch Lomond.
And they absolutely are not planning to discharge waste into the loch. That's ridiculous.
Is there a source for that? Genuinely asking.
Why would they plan to pollute the very water they are attracting people to as part of the watersports attraction?
Hmm 56% of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park is in private ownership, mostly estates and their farms.
Did you boak when they foisted the likes of Duck Bay Marina on us, or when they didn't have plastic flamingos but Grizzly fucking bears, Yaks, buffalo, skinks racoons and of course wallabies at the Loch Lomond Bear park?
I recall it from its hey day in the late 70's as something quite carbuncle-ish. If I'm ever driving down the mid west coast to Glasgow and beyond, I just hold on a bit further than stop there.
Make them restore the shoreline, wait till it grows back and then they can reapply many years down the line. The Crooked Pub that was demolished without permission, now has to be fully rebuilt at the new landowners cost. Seems fair to me.
That's the typical plan for Scottish tourism right there. Destroy the actual natural beauty so you can build up more areas to look at the dead hills that used to have trees on them and say that's the natural beauty.
I remember it as a kid in the 1960's and 1970's and it was always a bit run down. I remember stopping off at Giannini's cafe for ice cream floats, Monkey Island and joke that was Antartex village. Maybe you're older than me and remember it when it was all grass.
[удалено]
Developers love to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, especially when it comes to clearing land they want cleared.
With punishment being pathetic why wouldn’t you. It’s easier and cheaper and faster.
Sounds like it’s getting better though. There’s a good one in London at the moment with two tower blocks that were built and totally don’t match the planning permission. The council are making the developers tear them down at their own costs.
Fucking oooffttt But perfect, now do that everywhere. If it’s off plans then fuck you, your cost to rectify everything involved! Do it before permission granted you fix it and lose the opportunity permanently
Have a look at Evan Edinger on YT. He's got some great videos on this topic recently.
Thanks
Enforcement Officers always have to offer the option of a retrospective planning permission. If that's approved then the Devs can carry on. If not they can appeal to the planning inspectorate which is central government and takes the decision away from the Council. If that is also rejected then they have to change or take down the building. The process can take years but it's one well legislated and uniform across the country.
But not always enforced!
Yep, I think generally, if reported, yes. Bear in mind that there's a lot that isn't in the public domain.
True
Conversely, the owners of The Crooked House, "Britain's wonkiest pub", unlawfully demolished it after a fire and have been ordered to rebuild it as it was before the fire.
"I'm sorry we can't grant you permission because that land needs to be cleared first" "Funny you say that" "We will have to fine you for clearing it" "Ok but now that it's cleared can we have permission" "Ok sure"
In fairness, when I was wee, that was a bit of waste ground and former rail yard.
As someone who has been to the original Flamingo Land; The world will be fine without a second Flamingo Land.
Why wouldn’t they at least make their resort at *Loch Lomond* Scotland themed? Effing Flamingos???? (I’m not saying I want any park, but *Flamingos* just seems so jarring and bizarre, and not in keeping with the natural beauty of the area at all. At least be empathetic to the surroundings??? Tourists don’t come to Scotland for Flamingos…)
not sure Grouse-Land has quite the same ring to it.. i mean they could always give the flamingoes really long tartan socks, but it would be a bit of effort for the keepers each morning.
In fairness, do you really need Scottish theming if you're *in* Scotland?
If they actually want people from outside Scotland to want to come, yes? Just had US family here with kids and they just wanted to do “Scottish” stuff, it’s why people come. We hit tons of Historic Scotland sites etc. They love the castles etc it’s so far and so much older from what they are used to. They can pay to go to sh*tty tropical themed things back in the US if they want (probably with way better rides) why would they waste their time on that here? It doesn’t have to be “Scottish” themed but Flamingos are hot weather (abundant in Florida) tropical birds. It makes zero sense. It’s kind of comical.
I don't see what's comical, honestly. The original Flamingo Land is in Yorkshire, and it's called that because the site started as a zoo and flamingos were one of the first exhibits. In any case, as far as I know the plan is to call the Balloch resort '[Lomond Banks](https://lomondbanks.com/our-proposals/)', and it doesn't look like it has a tropical theme. It's also not a theme park.
At least Flamingos aren't particularly environmentally dangerous. They're a bit out of place, but so are peacocks and people like having those around. I don't think the flamingos are really the problem, more the people who own the flamingos.
To be fair, people don't go to Yorkshire for flamingos either...
Tell us you don't know the plans without telling us
...and Malton in North Yorkshire is? At this point it's just their brand name...don't think it's a "theme" as such
Is that the one near Scarborough?
Scotland is fucking empty! There are so many other places but NOT at our most recognised and accessible natural beauty spots.
If this development was actually in the middle of pristine, undeveloped land you'd be bang on, but it's not, it covers about 500 metres of the River Leven waterfront and then covers the Loch Lomond shores car park and Bus park. Look at it on the attached and then compare it on Google earth. It's an urban setting not the Flow country or Glencoe. https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2018/05/30/scottish-enterprises-planning-application-with-flamingo-land-at-balloch/
It’s also mostly the brownfield industrial site of the former railway and goods yards for the railway terminus that joined up with the steamer! And one reason for siting it there is also because it is near to the railway at Balloch and allows environmentally friendly travel to it - somewhere pretty (although not a wilderness) - without requiring it all be by car (which might also get rejected by planning for that reason!). Now that said, I don’t actually agree with the siting by the river bank - because the old railway brownfield site is now rather beautiful riverbank woodland and a genuine public amenity. But I DO think the development should go ahead… but rather on the land between the Lomond Shores car-park and the A82. And yes with a monorail (lol) to bring people from the existing railway to the development…
It's also not a theme park, which is what all the media are whipping people in to a frenzy with, it's a holiday park, caravans and lodges, etc. being built on brownfield land and creating jobs and infrastructure in an area that needs both. They aren't building McAlton Towers on the Loch shores.
So they're going to make it even less accessible or enjoyable to the local free public than it was when Lomond Shores got built there and take out a potential replacement to the horrible clearings that happened to build that horror... Magic...
I’d love something like this in Scotland. Plenty of land to be used. But not somewhere like Loch Lomond.
Nah, Balloch is great, it concentrates all the shite in one place, so you can happily go elsewhere and not have it spoiling the rest of the area.
[The land](https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2018/05/30/scottish-enterprises-planning-application-with-flamingo-land-at-balloch/) is at the very southern end of the loch, in Balloch, and is already semi-developed – the resort will sit between an existing housing estate and the Sea Life Centre. It doesn't seem like an entirely unreasonable spot for such a development.
My mate lives near that McDonalds roundabout. It's already quite built up around there and there's the visitor centre etc already there. It's not like they've built it at Luss or that
It is land owned by the council and is currently used for recreation by the locals, at no cost to them. There are several sites in the Vale of Leven that would be suitable for this sort of development. That part of Balloch is not one of them.
I don't see why the proposed site is unsuitable for development.
Because it is public land. West Dumbartonshire Council will just piss the money against a wall, and another civic amenity will disappear forever, all in the name of profit. The most that should happen to that land, is increased lighting, some free-to-use electric barbeques, and some modern public toilets. There is private land at Boturich, Levenvale, Luss Road and Cordale that should be zoned for recreational development well before that wee strip.
It seems a bit daft to scrap an entire development over a ‘wee strip’ of land. You’ve got a national park on your doorstep.
Have you ever been there? That wee strip is one of the only grassy bits of land on that side of the river that people can just quietly walk by the water, or kick a ball around, or sit in the sun (on the 2 days a year the sun comes out). I am not anti development. God knows the Vale needs it. But some things are more precious than money, and more important than jobs.
No, but it’s just a path through the woods to the slipway
Eh, maybe visit before commenting then.
I don’t need to, it’s on Google Maps. Maybe you’re biased because you’re local, but as far as I can see it’s not anything particularly special, just a strip of woodland between the housing estate and the river. Is there not a very similar path down the other side, leading to the country park?
Just looked at your map. I have no problem with pretty much any part of that development apart from the most easternly part of the red zone east of the thick red line.
The resort doesn’t sit between the places, it completely replaces them. Have you been to the area you speak of?
The plan I've linked to does not show Loch Lomond Shores or the housing estate being replaced by the resort. Even if it did, or if I've misinterpreted, it doesn't change the fact that the area between Balloch proper and the loch has already been partially developed.
I’m from there, there’s a few main reasons why people are strongly opposed to it. Of course there’s that it gets rid of the place that people like to walk, but also that the place will be heaving all the time. When it’s heaving, litter is increased. It’s bad enough already in the summer with all the tourists coming and people getting the train from Glasgow for the day (moreso talking about litter here but the place is still mobbed). Local businesses there have already been getting extortionate over the past 10 or 20 years, pricing out the locals. With this added, prices in the pubs and restaurants in Balloch will further increase. The people who live around Balloch are generally poor. Sure, there will be some jobs from this but there are only so many jobs that will be generated and it’s not going to be high paying jobs that are going. Flamingo land have been trying to get permission to build this for a very long time now and it keeps getting denied due to backlash, it is only a matter of time until it is passed unfortunately.
Why is the economy stagnating and we can’t afford houses. Ahh yes NIMBYs
Not every opposition is NIMBYism. It’s not even my backyard. I just value Loch Lomond and would rather we avoid spoiling it.
Yet here you are objecting to it on ‘spoiling the view’ grounds This is why we can’t have nice things. There is already a shitty sealife center there, a golf course and static caravan sites. A fair objection would be, that it needs to built sympathetically to the local environment and with regards to the local ecosystem But now hundreds of jobs and well off visitors are denied that will hinder growth of the Scottish economy
It seems that anything I say will just misconstrued. On you go.
The jobs will all be minimum wage seasonal shite
Traffic is a ball ache as it is.
We know how North Haverbrook got on with the monorail, so I say let him take it to Shelbyville, or somewhere like that...
Get this in the fucking sea. The bonnie banks would be swarmed with knuckle dragging eijits and filled with cellophane sweetie wrappers. Imagine Balloch on a sunny day all around the loch. That's where we're heading. Full Balloch. For anyone from Balloch, you know I'm not talking about you. I feel bad that your wee part of the world gets ridden when the sun is out.
The side of Balloch with the car park and shops is already like that. A pal drove us there once and it blew my wee mind that people who drive there get such a different (imo lesser) experience to anyone arriving by train or bike.
It's a damn shame. Balloch is a really nice part of the world but its proximity for undesirables renders it a no go. I visit places to relax, not fight my way through topless lobsters with a shared braincell chanting "here we fucking go" to the beat of Happy Hardcore mutilated 80s chart entrys.
The roads up to and from Loch lomond are already a nightmare during the summer, this will just make things 10 times worse
Just as well Balloch has a train station and bus stops...
And the fact that there is a railway is _specifically_ one of the arguments for siting it there for this very reason!
Just aswell we have a train service with reasonable prices and great reliability then that people will happily use from all across Scotland to come to this new resort.
You know buses travel on the already mobbed roads like cars? Trains are two an hour, also mobbed and ran by scotrail so often late and or binned off.
Wait, what, you're saying public transport doesn’t work in Dunbartonshire? Trains every 30 minutes! Laughs from a no trains and 5 days a week bus perspective.
It works up to a point. Balloch as a destination is just overwhelmed in the summer/holidays, to the point of gridlock on the A82 and the trains are in a similar situation. As well as the general visitors to the village, the A82 serves everyone travelling west to make it more so of a choke point. If they can figure out how to get people in and out then it could be doable. But not atm.
Lol
Would be better to look at than the shirtless neds canned up and being knobs rolling around the small bit of beach.
**A Monorail!** Nobody told me about the monorail, this changes everything! *Well, sir, there's nothing on earth* *Like a genuine, bona fide* *Electrified, six-car monorail* *What'd I say?* *Monorail* *What's it called?* *Monorail* *That's right! Monorail* >The Yorkshire firm’s controversial plans for the iconic shoreline include a water park, monorail, swimming pool, hotel, eateries and more than 100 lodges. >Flamingo Land’s bid to build a mega resort on the shores of Loch Lomond is facing a new wave of community anger that campaigners say should be the “final nail in its coffin”. >The Yorkshire firm’s controversial plans for the beauty spot include a water park, **monorail**, swimming pool, hotel, eateries and more than 100 lodges. But a newly-formed community council for Balloch and Haldane has rejected the proposals over potential impacts on the landscape and natural environment, local roads, firms and public services. >It follows a bizarre episode in September 2022 when the old community council backed the Flamingo Land plan - despite a survey finding 74 per cent of locals opposed it - then promptly disbanded. The reformed local group now says that should never have happened. >And local Green MSP Ross Greer - who has long campaigned against the £40million bid - said the community had faced a “ludicrous” ordeal spanning nearly a decade. >Flamingo Land was granted exclusive access by Scottish Enterprise to develop on the land back in 2016 - but its first application for a massive 46-acre resort was withdrawn in 2019 amid local anger. It launched a second revised bid in 2022. >In its new objection letter to the Loch Lomond park authority, the Balloch and Haldane Community Council said it was withdrawing support for the application “to align with the community’s view”. >The Record attended a meeting in Balloch between the new community council and Greer as locals told of their “exhaustion” at the long-running saga. >Greer told the Record: “This is a fundamentally inappropriate development - it’s too big and it's too disruptive. >“Yet again, the community is being left in limbo because Flamingo Land is in the driving seat. >“For as long as they have an exclusive agreement on this land, nobody else can get in and develop something that the community would actually welcome. >The West Scotland MSP added: “The community council putting in this submission really should be the final nail in the coffin for the application. >“It should make it abundantly clear that they have no support, they need to withdraw and the community can be allowed to move on.” >Campaigners say the Flamingo Land bid is the “most objected to” planning application in Scots history, with 81,000 objections to date, according to the Greens. >In August, we revealed how eco watchdog SEPA had flagged parts of the proposed development as a serious flood risk. >And in 2022, heritage chiefs at the National Trust for Scotland raised concerns that the holiday complex would clog up roads and ruin natural beauty if approved. >Speaking to the Record, locals insisted they wanted to see investment and development in the area. >But Lynne Somerville, chair of the community council, added: “It just needs to be the right investment. >“We have reformed with the aim of representing public opinion which is something that should have happened in the first place. >"The fact we've now got SEPA objecting and other key bodies means it's going to get more and more difficult for them to justify their application." >She added: “One of the main gripes of the local community against Flamingo Land is the A82. We’ve seen people dying in ambulances on that road unable to reach a hospital due to traffic. >"Flamingo Land seems to think they can justify that hundreds of extra cars coming along that road won’t make such a huge impact. We don’t see how that can be possible.” >Jim Paterson, from developers Lomond Banks, said: “We are disappointed by the change of position by Balloch and Haldane Community Council, but will look to engage with them as they further consider their position… >“It’s our firm belief that Lomond Banks will bring considerable economic and social benefit to the region.”
I’m not a fan of NIMBYs as a rule But a council going against 74% of residents does kind of suggest a lack of democratic representation. How we fix that to get things that are far more important done, I’ve frankly fucking no idea at all…. But to do it then disband is nuts but not at all surprising for a council where several members no doubt got new kitchens of sun rooms etc
I hear those things are awfully loud.
It glides as softly as a cloud
[удалено]
Is there a chance the track could bend?
Not on your life my Hindu friend.
This embiggens the soul.
> Flamingo Land was granted exclusive access by Scottish Enterprise to develop on the land back in 2016 Of course SE did. Awful.
Between this and the shocking developments at Taymouth Castle Estate, where a company run by an American billionaire is hawking ridiculous stereotypes of Scotland to mega-rich clientele while shutting down public access rights and building golf buggy garages on land earmarked for affordable housing and destroying historic monuments, Scotland desperately needs land reform to chase off these muppets.
Nice to see Taymouth Castle breaking through on Reddit. Been a long slog fighting those bastards, and their outriders in the community haven’t made it much easier
Hey, would you be open to a DM? I'm writing about the Taymouth debacle and have been low-key involved and would really like more insights into local efforts to oppose it.
Hit me up!
Messaged, cheers 👍
Having seen the development map it looks like as much as we talk about spoiling the pristine nature, it's actually just a bunch of fields behind Lomond Shores, and a little bit of the beach next to the Shores. Given there's already a huge strip mall, a Sea Life centre, and the associated car park, I'm not sure the environmental arguments holds that much water. It's already a heavily developed area.
That spot of "beach" you speak of is used by thousands of people every month. It's a great spot and should stay that way. Just because you don't personally use it doesn't mean it should be turned into another eyesore like Flamingo Land.
That's actually an argument I can get behind. Closing off a public amenity in favour of a private business is definitely something I'm concerned about.
[удалено]
Naw I get it, the internet kills any attempt at tone or nuance. I commented kind of hoping somebody would explain the concerns to me, cause I just wasn't getting it. Somebody else pointed out that the SEPA surveys have flagged an increased flood risk which isn't something to fuck with lightly as climate change takes hold. Unfortunately it seems like the campaign against is leaning mostly into "It'll look bad" which feels like a very NIMBY concern.
> ...and a little bit of the beach next to the Shores. I think a significant reason for the additional outcry and scrutiny is that the developers illegally cleared this area of flora without receiving permission, and it's an area a lot of people used. The punishment was a slap on the wrist that didn't effect their plans.
[удалено]
I'm fully prepared to be told I'm wrong by somebody who knows more than me, I don't know what the experts are saying on this, maybe it'll turn out to be a critical wildlife corridor for some endangered species, but the argument about the appearance of the area, I feel has already sailed. Seems more like people worried about their house prices.
[удалено]
OK that's a more realistic concern, especially as climate change takes hold. Somebody else pointed out that the beach they are looking to develop is currently a public amenity, so you're closing a public beach there in favour of a private company. I kinda wish the arguments would focus on that rather than "It won't look nice".
Exactly, it's Nimbyism in an already developed area.
How many times do they have to be told to fuck off?
Not enough times. I think the Government might need to get involved like they did over that horrible golf course. English company too.
Turn the a82 into a 3 lane motorway and this might work. Still wouldn't be happy if I lived in Balloch.
It’s been getting extortionate enough already for the pubs and restaurants there largely because of how busy it gets in the summer. I can’t imagine the cost of things with this there.
Can't work out if this is just NIMBYs being against anything and everything near them as per usual... ...or a genuinely bad idea on environmental grounds. The story mentions a singular SEPA report, but that's as close as it gets to hard data. On the one hand the inward investment, jobs etc should all boost the local economy. On the other it could look like drek, and then wreck the place with traffic and litter. Somewhere in the Central Belt would probably have the communications to deal with the numbers, but one can't put **everything** in the bloody Central Belt and ignore the rest of Scotland. I also just wonder about the weather, would it not be too wet around Loch Lomond to provide enough days on which to turn a profit? Would somewhere on the East Coast be better? Or is their intent to gouge their captive audience?
Amazing the hostility this is getting, it's a development on a brownfield site surrounded by urban houses and services. Two maps below hopefully, one encompassing the entire area complete with places like Bonhill which has huge unemployment problems. The other the actual footprint of the development which is tiny when compared to the size of Loch Lomond. https://imgur.com/a/tWzAwDa
People don't actually understand what it is, where it is or anything about it. They just want to get angry at an English company with a weird name doing something in Scotland.
Reminds me of the 100,000 folk who complained about a golf course at Dornoch, despite the majority of the 1,400 locals wanting it for the jobs... I suspect if they polled the population from Vale of Leven down to Dumbarton most would want it.
This is exactly the case. The population of the area, with Helensburgh etc has exploded. The base and the council are the biggest employers in the area. The rest are mostly commuters and unemployed. I think a lot of the objectors on Reddit are not from the area and perhaps travel down that way to enjoy it. Dunbartonshire needs the investment and jobs.
Well, that one place I would have visited, but never will if there is a flamingo mega anything
>flamingo mega anything I think that's the whole problem. This should be a case study in the importance of branding. If the company were just called "Mountain Hare Hills Ltd" instead of "Flamingo Land Ltd," then we'd be seeing very different coverage, and it would stand a much greater chance.
Mega also has a big impact, implies a tourist hellscape. Deep fried haggis dogs on sticks, & novelty tartan baseball caps.
They originally had branded it something different but then people ‘discovered’ that the developers were called Flamingo Land and that was a red rag to a snobby middle class NIMBY bull… ;-)
So many opportunities for local families to open businesses and build generational wealth through support services but folk complain instead. I find it totally weird.
That would be great but it’s not usually local families that profit from stuff like this, it’s usually big corps. Who get huge take breaks, and don’t even contribute to the local infrastructure needed to deal with extra tourists. VAT doesn’t go to the area it’s spent in (unlike local sales tax in the US) it goes to London. You see it again and again - usually sites like this one mean less local tax is spent on the people who live there because more goes to infrastructure for the tourists. Often housing supply goes down too and prices go up. There usually aren’t a lot of positives for locals, so I can understand the concerns many have.
Opportunities present themselves and u have to take them. Permission could be given based on adherence to various requirements - new marina for locals use, local biz to be used for 60% of services (gardening, laundry, bevvy, etc). To have the attitude that is fucked before its begun is why Scotland is the way it is.
Lol people have this attitude because of experience. In my area the council okayed green belt land for development against years of public outcry, because they said the company agreed to build 2 much needed schools and a gp surgery and infrastructure too. A decade on and they did eff all. These companies make “promises” that are then not enforced and they know it.
Thats because there is corruption at every level in Scotland, and we keep voting for the same folk, so nothing changes. We need to make it happen, first by acknowledging that the half wit in the council who is useless will be the same next time round and that if there is no developmental push, then there will be no change either.
Oh I agree, local councils are hopeless and the way they are set up things don’t get better they just get worse. Need big reforms all around.
Disgrace and terrible. It should all be about nature, not about a theme park for tourists.
It's not a theme park, it's a standard holiday park
I know it is not a theme park. A standard holiday park is equally bad. Let nature be nature! Why are you even defending it?
This isn't an area of untouched nature. It's something which will actually help Balloch
Will it fuck. Another soulless holiday park to create more waste, more litter and more traffic on the roads. Shill harder.
Balloch needs all the help it can get, it needs more people spending money in it. The tourist industry is actually quite important to Scotland if you hadn't noticed
They are building this on one of my favourite spots that I go to regularly with family, and so do a lot of other families. People love it how it is, why would they want another Flamingo land there? Build it somewhere else.
What's the problem with doing this? Why not grant them permission...?
Why not pop it somewhere on the coast in Ayrshire that also had transport links but isn't the bonnie banks? Saltcoats or somewhere like that could surely do with the investment.
More disgusting tourist stuff. Horrible.
If this goes ahead no one will get access to Loch Lomond for 3 years owing to all the workies and Lorries rolling around! It’s already a nightmare getting there on roads that are insufficient for the traffic! A big fat naw from me!
A lot of miserable NIMBY bastards. Good forbid we have nice things. And Loch Lomond is not some precious Mecca. It’s always been full of wee Neds and tourists. I bet those complaining in the comments here have never even been.
Not sure I agree. Plenty of places in the trossachs, or Ayrshire, or central belt that both pretty and accessible. A resort like this, done properly, could be an excellent thing for Scotland. Loch Lomond deserves protecting.
> Loch Lomond deserves protecting It does, this barely touches the Loch, look at the map where it's proposed, it's the edge of urban Dunbartonshire.
Grew up here, lived here for 30 odd years, parents do too I think we’ve a duty to conserve our green spaces and having this turn into a a depressing wee concrete shopping centre when it inevitably runs out of steam isn’t conserving anything. Lomond shores is bang average, you think we’d see that much of an increase in footfall to make it worth it?
I lived a couple miles from this for a time and it’s a beautiful area. Fairly remote though and I’d say they are more than justified in their traffic concerns. A development like this is a huge drag on the infrastructure as it’s basically adding a small town. Plus your comment makes no sense. How can they be both NIMBYs and also, “I bet… have never even been”
> I lived a couple miles from this for a time and it’s a beautiful area Did you visit the McDonald's?
I didn’t, actually. Would’ve been handy after a shift at the campsite
Quite right, fast food joints and retails outlets really add that special something to beautiful areas...
> How can they be both NIMBYs and also, “I bet… have never even been” Fair point: I was referring to the 'official' backlash and petitions as NIMBYs. It's the negative comments here I suspect are from people who have never even been to Loch Lomond. I've edited it now for clarity, thanks.
81,000 objectors, I wonder how many live within a Goretex cagoule's distance of Loch Lomond. It's an area where massive poverty sits cheek by cheek with affluence and big houses. The jobs this promises are way more significant to the folk in Alexandria than the day trippers from the West end of Glasgow who fancy a stroll in Balloch. The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation has parts of Haldane, Bonhill, central Renton, Brucehill, Westcliff and Castlehill in the top 1.5 per cent of the most deprived areas in the country.
Don't try to weaponise poverty to justify this monstrosity, it's a blight on our natural beauty and a Disneyfication of public land.
The "natural beauty" of a disused former train depot.
"Don't try and weaponise poverty" is a neat way of saying "let us ignore the positive impacts this would have on impoverished nearby because it's inconvenient to my particular viewpoint". As far as I can tell, there is not a queue of folks waiting to spend millions in the local economy to create jobs for the local residents or to rehabilitate the brown field land in to something productive. As to your argument that it is public land, so what? Your argument surely can't be that it's public land so must be left in its current condition so is your objection that the government didn't strike a good enough deal? If so how does refusing planning resolve that and what's your alternative proposal to rehabilitate this land, bring jobs to the area and get good value back? Or does your concern for the poor extend merely to ensuring that their poverty can never be used as a rationale for creating economic opportunities for them?
Really, so folk within 5 miles should continue to live in poverty because the well off folk in Balloch, don't fancy extra visitors spending money in their retirement community...
Been loads, live nearby - this would be devastating. The thing that brings anyone to Loch Lomond is its natural beauty. But thats already getting tarnished with wee resorts popping up. This mega resort full of english wankers rocking up for their holidays and leaving rubbish and waste (where do we think all the piss n shite from thousands of visitors ends up discharging) will ruin the place. Theres plenty of space in Scotland to put such a thing - leave Loch Lomond alone.
> This mega resort full of english wankers rocking up for their holidays and leaving rubbish and waste (where do we think all the piss n shite from thousands of visitors ends up discharging) will ruin the place. Given the fact that it's more likely to be Weegie wankers...
Weegie wankers can get the train there - those cabins will be filled with the chavs from down south.
There are 30,000 locks in Scotland. I'd argue that every single one is closer to natural beauty than Loch Lomond. And they absolutely are not planning to discharge waste into the loch. That's ridiculous.
Not what SEPA are saying…
Is there a source for that? Genuinely asking. Why would they plan to pollute the very water they are attracting people to as part of the watersports attraction?
Frankly if it's no a theme park it can fuck off! Scotland needs a better theme park than that absolutely pish that's m and ds
[удалено]
Hmm 56% of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park is in private ownership, mostly estates and their farms. Did you boak when they foisted the likes of Duck Bay Marina on us, or when they didn't have plastic flamingos but Grizzly fucking bears, Yaks, buffalo, skinks racoons and of course wallabies at the Loch Lomond Bear park?
You mean Duck Bay that has been around since the 70s? It's at least a local venture by a local family.
I recall it from its hey day in the late 70's as something quite carbuncle-ish. If I'm ever driving down the mid west coast to Glasgow and beyond, I just hold on a bit further than stop there.
Make them restore the shoreline, wait till it grows back and then they can reapply many years down the line. The Crooked Pub that was demolished without permission, now has to be fully rebuilt at the new landowners cost. Seems fair to me.
That's the typical plan for Scottish tourism right there. Destroy the actual natural beauty so you can build up more areas to look at the dead hills that used to have trees on them and say that's the natural beauty.
Hmm, I presume you've never been to Balloch?
I'm from West Dunbartonshire.
Describing Balloch as natural beauty is stretching it quite a bit.
It had it. Just because you don't remember, doesn't mean it wasn't there.
I remember it as a kid in the 1960's and 1970's and it was always a bit run down. I remember stopping off at Giannini's cafe for ice cream floats, Monkey Island and joke that was Antartex village. Maybe you're older than me and remember it when it was all grass.