Rejected Lomond Banks Planning Appeal in Balloch Denied

Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park, Scotland – In an effort to achieve their vision of a “sustainable place with a thriving future,” as outlined in The National Park’s act of 2000, the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park has been actively promoting their new “Partnership Plan.”

As a conservation charity dedicated to promoting the unique qualities of the park, The Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs recognizes the importance of partnership in achieving their goals. It was clear to them that the Lomond Banks development presented multiple opportunities for collaboration to ensure the long-term stewardship of the site’s natural and cultural assets. Therefore, they fully supported the development, but were disappointed by the National Park’s handling of the application, which seemed to contradict their partnership approach. The developer has since appealed the National Park’s refusal.

One of the reasons cited for the refusal was the potential for flooding, but according to The Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs, this was not a valid concern. They argue that most of the site is not at risk of flooding and any lower-lying areas could have been addressed through planning conditions, similar to those imposed on the Park’s own slipway building and a new rescue boat house.

Additionally, there was confusion surrounding the classification of the area as “previously used” or “previously” used, which seemed to be a deliberate attempt to avoid acknowledging the site’s history of agricultural, railway, sandpit, and tourism uses.

Another unexpected decision was the sudden reversal of the decades-old tourism and recreation zoning. The Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs question whether the developer was made aware of this change in policy, which directly impacted their application.

Despite these challenges, the most disappointing aspect for The Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs was the National Park’s lack of imagination and leadership when it came to the potential for education and community involvement in the stewardship of the site’s natural and cultural assets.

The site, which was once a wildlife-rich mosaic of woodland, wetland, and ponds 8,000 years ago, has undergone significant changes due to human activities. The Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs argue that there is an opportunity to restore some of these lost habitats and promote biodiversity through re-meandering the burns, recreating the ponds, and planting new trees. They suggest that this could have been achieved through partnerships with local schools and volunteers, and by incorporating educational elements into the development.

Furthermore, the development also presented opportunities for the preservation and restoration of cultural assets such as Woodbank House, old Balloch Station, Balloch Pier, and the Maid of the Loch paddle steamer. However, without proper partnership and support, the future of these sites is uncertain.

The Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs also highlight the potential economic benefits of the Lomond Banks development, such as the proposed public transport link between Balloch and Loch Lomond Shores, and the creation of 200 jobs. They argue that these benefits, along with the ongoing revenue from tourism and business rates, could have been used to fund visitor management and stewardship of the area’s natural and cultural assets.

They express disappointment in the National Park’s approach to the development, which they believe was influenced by misinformation spread on social media by Ross Greer. They argue that the development was not a threat to Loch Lomond, as most of the facilities would have been located in Balloch or within the site’s woodland areas, and the hotel’s main frontage would have faced away from the loch.

In conclusion, The Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs stress the importance of partnership in achieving a sustainable future for both people and nature in the National Park. They believe that the extreme and confrontational approach taken by the National Park in this case goes against their own partnership policy and will ultimately be detrimental to both Balloch and the natural environment. They urge the National Park to reconsider and work together with partners, such as the developer, to achieve their shared goals.