THE Scottish Greens misled the public into calling for a ban on a Loch Lomond Flamingo Land, resort bosses claimed as they dropped their £30 million plan.
The board of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park was set to meet next week to decide whether to allow Flamingo Land to create a holiday park on waterside land in Balloch, West Dunbartonshire.
Officials had called for refusal, claiming the big-money Lomond Banks blueprint was in breach of the local development plan and could harm the environment.
That recommendation followed 57,000 objections by members of the public and campaigns by both locals and politicians, including Green West of Scotland MSP Ross Greer, who led efforts to block the bid.
But yesterday Flamingo Land and Scottish Enterprise, which was to sell the plot to the firm, formally withdrew the planning application.
In a lawyer’s letter, the development agency and the resort firm hit out at the Greens, saying a campaign page urging visitors to “Say no to Flamingo Land in Balloch” was “misleading” and skewed public opinion.
It also claims the Green campaign showed a “lack of understanding” about environmental impact assessments carried out as part of the application process and had pursued a “political” agenda that had influenced local Labour MSP Jackie Baillie as well as members of the public.
Another letter expressed “disappointment” at the national park’s handling of the application.
The scheme, which included a monorail, water park, housing, holiday accommodation, brewery and more, had already been revised.
Paving the way for a fresh bid, the applicants said they had “reluctantly decided it was not only in theirs, but also in the public interest, that the application is withdrawn, so that any remaining issues officers have with certain aspects of the environmental impact assessment can be addressed ahead of the application being re-submitted”.
Andy Miller, director of Lomond Banks, said efforts will now turn to dispelling “some of the myths that continue to circulate around our ambitions for the site”. He added: “We will consider re-submitting our plans to ensure decision makers will be able to take a fully informed decision on this important application.”
Scottish Enterprise director Allan McQuade added: “Any proposed plan and investment of this scale must be considered from all angles and subsequent planning and investment decisions based on hard evidence and fact therefore it is only right that the current planning application be withdrawn to allow sufficient time for all parties to consider additional new information.”
Responding to the withdrawal and criticism, Greer, above, said: “Flamingo Land’s environmentally destructive proposal was the most unpopular planning application in Scottish history. More than 57,000 people objected, including many in the local community who saw through the spin. Now, following our historic campaign and the national park’s own planning officers recommending a rejection, the developers have, for now, withdrawn their ridiculous plans.
“This is likely a transparent attempt to resubmit with a few small changes. If they think such a cynical ploy will stop our community campaign, they have another think coming.”
He went on: “It is truly bizarre to see a letter from Flamingo Land’s lawyers, essentially labelling thousands of members of the public stupid for having quoted the developer’s own environmental impact assessment in their objections.
“If Flamingo Land doesn’t like what’s being said, it shouldn’t have proposed such environmentally destructive plans for our world-famous national park in the first place.”
Baillie said she was “not against development” but that “we can do so much better than this while respecting our beautiful natural environment”.
West Dunbartonshire Council leader Jonathan McColl said development plans must “meet the needs and wishes of the local community”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here