UKC

/ Huge development planned at Loch Lomond

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
MikeR - on 07 Jun 2018

Apologies if this has been posted already, but the more coverage it gets the better. 

Loch Lomond and Trossachs NP and Scottish Enterprise are supporting the development of the southern end of Loch Lomond by Flamingo Land. 

This would see development of 27.9 hectares (69acres), including:

• Refurbished tourist information building;

• 60-bedroom Apart-hotel;

• 32-bedspace budget accommodation;

• Up to 105 self-catering lodges;

• 20 houses;

• 900m2 brewery;

• Leisure / pool /water park area up to approximately 2,500m2;

• Restaurants/Cafe & Retail areas up to 1,100m2 in total;

• Visitor reception areas & hub building up to approximately 2,000m2;

• External activity areas including tree top walk, events/performance areas, children’s play areas, monorail, forest adventure rides, picnic / play areas;

• Staff and service area of up to approximately 900m2;

• Associated parking (up to 320 additional spaces),landscaping and infrastructure development works. 

http://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2018/05/30/scottish-enterprises-planning-application-with-flamingo-land-at-balloch/

Which seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that national parks are supposed to protect from. 

You can object here https://eplanning.lochlomond-trossachs.org/OnlinePlanning/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=P87LTZSIKOU00

2
subtle on 08 Jun 2018
In reply to MikeR:

Thanks for flagging this up.

Oh dear.

I do despair at the Loch Lomond and Trossachs NP.

Andrew Kin - on 08 Jun 2018
In reply to MikeR:

Without going into the specifics of this location, what exactly is wrong with restrictive development on a case by case basis?

I have just returned from Imst Austria and tbh I marvelled at how they have a balance of lovely town, stunning views and taking advantage of natural facilities to enhance tourist income.  If there was a bridge there was a company running outdoor (go ape) type activities.  If there was a river then it was littered with businesses running activities.  Hills had skiing, tabogon or MTB trails.  Whatever was there seemed not to detract from the location and tbh I imagined the place in 50yrs time and I felt really comfortable that nature would easily retake anything that wasn't needed.

Are we in danger (not in all situations) of just discounting everything as NIMBY

2
tom_in_edinburgh - on 08 Jun 2018
In reply to MikeR:

I wonder if I could get funding to make a horror film about a water theme park on Loch Lomond.  

It would be pretty much the same as Jurassic Park except instead of dinosaurs there would be midges and nobody would survive.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Jun 2018
In reply to MikeR:

yes, but... it would be in Balloch. Next to the sea life centre and an existing outlet mall. and 2 miles from Bonhill, an inner city sink estate dropped in  the vale of leven. 2 miles the other way is the horror that is duck bay marina. i think its hard to argue that wilderness character is being compromised by this. 

subtle on 08 Jun 2018
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> yes, but... it would be in Balloch. Next to the sea life centre and an existing outlet mall. and 2 miles from Bonhill, an inner city sink estate dropped in  the vale of leven. 2 miles the other way is the horror that is duck bay marina. i think its hard to argue that wilderness character is being compromised by this. 

does that mean there should be carte blanche to add to the bilghts already on the urban landscape then due to proximity?

will make travelling the A82 in summer even more troublesome

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Jun 2018
In reply to subtle:

 

no; but when weighed in the balance of the employment opportunities it could create in an area not oversupplied with them, the addition of more recreational infrastructure in an area which is already an urban/industrial landscape could well be justified. 

 

point about A82 well made, i would hope that the infrastructure development necessary to support it would be factored into the  application; otherwise no one is going  to be able to even get to the car park...

 

Dax H - on 08 Jun 2018
In reply to MikeR:

At the end of the day it will bring lots of much needed work to the area and hopefully due to  brexit it will be work for locals rather than shipping in Eastern Europeans.

I like this quote from the website you linked to. "There is considerable local feeling against the proposed development and by this morning 13 objections had been lodged, most of which come from local people"  There are apparently 17k people around the lick lomond area, 13 complaints is not even a blip on the statistics.

5
Eric9Points - on 08 Jun 2018
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> yes, but... it would be in Balloch. Next to the sea life centre and an existing outlet mall. and 2 miles from Bonhill, an inner city sink estate dropped in  the vale of leven. 2 miles the other way is the horror that is duck bay marina. i think its hard to argue that wilderness character is being compromised by this. 

Exactly, it's a development in one of the biggest shitholes in Scotland that just happens to be situated on the Bonny Banks. As long as development is kept South of Duck bay I don't have much of an issue.

Flinticus - on 14 Jun 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

First they came for Drumkinnon Wood, and I did not speak out...

Then they came for Duck Bay...

MikeR - on 14 Jun 2018
In reply to Andrew Kin:

Somehow missed all the replies to this. 

I don't have a problem with small, well considered developments in a NP on a case by case development.

I accept that this would bring some extra employment to the area. However, I don't think that just because it's not the prettiest place that it's acceptable to build whatever you want. My main concern is it setting a precidence for other similar development in our NPs. 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.