How could one man give the nod to a brash £40m tourist trap in the best loved beauty spot in Scotland?

Daily Mail​

a day ago

It is possibly the most unpopular tourism proposal in Scottish planning history. People living nearby are overwhelmingly against it. Even Conservative and Green politicians for a united front in condemning it.
The number of objections from across the country and beyond is unprecedented. More than 155,000 people have said no thank-you to a leisure resort on the banks of Loch Lomond, perhaps the nation's most jealously guarded scenic treasure.
But there is a number still more extraordinary than that. It is the number of people who, ultimately, decided whether a plan by a Yorkshire company called Flamingo Land to plonk a £43.5 million complex with hotels, lodges, restaurants, a waterpark and monorail in Scotland oldest national park should be given the nod. That number is just one.
The lone decision maker was David Buylla, who goes by the title of principal reporter for the Scottish Government Planning and Environmental Appeals Decision.
Unelected, his job is to field appeals from unsuccessful applicants and rule on whether – in his professional opinion – elected bodies answerable to voters made the right call in refusing them. If he thinks they did not, he has the power to turn their ruling on its head.
Last month Mr Buylla delivered his verdict on the whether a unanimous decision by Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) to reject the holiday resort on the land it is there to protect was the correct one. He has indicated it was not.
In his view, providing Flamingo Land satisfies a series of conditions, they should go ahead and build the leisure park that holds the Scottish planning record for most objections.
Unsurprisingly, the shock reversal has prompted a furious outcry. Demonstrators made their displeasure known outside the Scottish Parliament last week.
Scottish Labour's deputy leader Dame Jackie Baillie, the local MSP, has called it an 'affront to democracy'. Ross Greer of the Scottish Greens says it is an 'anti-democratic outrage' and that the approval of the 'mega-resort' will be 'deeply damaging to our national reputation.'
And SNP ministers? What do they say on the denouement to Scotland's most railed-against planning application ever? They merely assert that the 'expert' has spoken.
On any analysis the Flamingo Land saga – some ten years in the making – raises serious questions about the planning system, its accountability to the public, its apparent democratic deficit – not to mention why a Scottish Government reporter's expertise trumps that of the raft of experts who say the resort is a non-starter.
But the affair is messier and murkier than that. Even more uncomfortable questions are now emerging over a planning fiasco which critics say leaves the government hopelessly compromised.
Why, for example, should its appointed planning officer's conclusion be trusted over the recommendation of the government's own environmental watchdog, Sepa, which says the resort, known as Lomond Banks, should be ruled out because it breaches flood protection rules?
And what to make of the fact that the land on which the resort would be built is currently owned by the Scottish Government's economic development wing, Scottish Enterprise, which plans to sell plot to Flamingo Land on approval of its application?
According to Dame Jackie and others involved in the saga from the outset, the holiday resort proposal arose following government instructions to Scottish Enterprise to 'realise your assets' to raise capital.
Having chosen Flamingo Land as its preferred bidder, Scottish Enterprise 'courted' the developer, says the Labour politician.
Others go further. Former Conservative councillor Sally Page claims the English company was not only 'encouraged' by both the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise but that planners on LLTNP 'guided' the developer through the process.
She says: 'Flamingo Land have spent a six-figure sum preparing this application. They can probably show enough evidence to support the case that Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Government and LLTNP encouraged them all along.
'It is probable that a KC would be able to put together the evidence and sue either the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise or LLTNP for wasting their time, should it not go through.'
In the end, she suggests, it was 'easier for the LLTNP locally to turn it down and let the Scottish Government's faceless reporter make the difficult decision.'
In a nutshell she is arguing that the planning body was acutely aware that any decision they made to refuse the application would be challenged, taken out of their hands and possibly overturned – but they, at least, would avoid taking the heat for it.
A sorry reflection, many might conclude, on a planning system which, at the appeal stage, upends democracy and removes political accountability.
But where does this leave a Scottish Government which finds itself on both sides of the equation? Its own agency is the landowner which stands to profit from the sale of it to a developer. Its environmental watchdog is a key voice in opposing the development. And yet another arm of government, its appeals division, is the ultimate decision maker – reaching conclusions against the backdrop of possible legal action against its employer.
In the circumstances, can it be tenable that no one with Ministerial responsibility – and accountability to voters – is prepared to involve themselves?
Or is the fact that Scottish Government fingerprints are all over this almighty planning mess already the very reason why Ministers now refuse to touch it?
Dame Jackie tells the Mail: 'Scottish Enterprise, the economic development arm of the SNP Government, has courted Lomond Banks for close to 10 years. It is therefore little wonder that SNP Ministers don't want to call it in.'
The proposal, critics point out, is to build a holiday resort which is entirely out of keeping with the natural beauty of a visitor attraction of profound national importance.
It will put 250 extra cars an hour onto the already congested A82, bring minimal economic benefit for the West Dunbartonshire community of Balloch because the resort is self-contained, offer mainly low-paid jobs and destroy ancient woodland.
It was opposed not only by 155,000 objectors but by Sepa, the National Trust for Scotland, Ramblers Scotland, community councils and the Woodland Trust.
Appalled by the lone planning officer's finding against the weight of such considerable expert opinion, the latter's advocacy manager Simon Ritchie states: 'The loss of ancient woodland to a development anywhere is shameful. To see it destroyed in a national park beggars belief.'
And yet, it would seem, the Scottish Government is content that a lone operative has dealt with the matter and sees no reason for Ministers to dirty their hands with the fall-out.
Mr Greer, whose party was in a power-sharing agreement with the SNP while much of the planning row raged, is among the most vociferous critics of the Scottish Government on this issue.
He insists democratically accountable Ministers must have the final say when an application is of national importance.
'In the case of Flamingo Land, the Planning Minister and the First Minister are hiding behind officials, despite this decision effectively overturning key protections in the national planning framework agreed by Parliament.'
He adds: 'Ministers should use their powers of recall when it's in the national interest. That is why the mechanism is available to them. Hiding behind officials sows mistrust towards our institutions. In our democracy, the buck stops with those who are elected.'
Dame Jackie, meanwhile, describes the reporter's conclusions as 'really bizarre' and says that, in any case, it is 'not acceptable' for one unelected appointee, however experienced, to be free to overturn the decision of an elected body on an issue of such magnitude,
There should be set criteria which trigger ministerial involvement in planning decisions she says.
'It's the lack of consistency, it's the race to get this through – and it's ministers refusing to do anything about calling it in because it is a political hot potato.
'It is an affront to democracy that this decision has been made by a single reporter, when less contentious applications have been called in previously.
She adds: 'I want somebody who is democratically elected to look at this properly, and that's what I think Ministers should be doing.'
The Scottish Government does have form for calling in planning decisions it deems of national importance.
Back in 2008, Ministers stepped in and obliged Donald Trump whose plan to build a golf resort on the Menie Estate was refused by Aberdeenshire Council. The future US president's project was duly given the nod – resulting in years of controversy.
Seventeen years on, there is zero Scottish Government appetite for ministerial involvement in the long-running and highly complex Lomond Banks row.
Indeed, public finance minister Ivan McKee claims it is not even appropriate for him to comment on the application because it 'remains live'.
Technically that may be the case – but only because the Scottish Government reporter has given Flamingo Land a deadline of six months to satisfy 49 conditions and reach a legally binding agreement with the national park.
Yet he did feel free to say that, in view of the 'very technical' issues in the case and the high level of public interest it was appropriate that 'objective planning judgement' was applied. 'For that reason, I do not intend to recall this appeal'.
He added: 'The expert in this case is the reporter, who is tasked with going through the planning regulations as they apply, looking at the evidence in depth.'
Nor was Mr Swinney any more keen to step in to 'save' Loch Lomond. 'The appeal remains live. Members have to understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment.'
The democratic deficit at the heart of Scotland's planning appeal system is, of course, not a new discovery for many.
Rural dwellers who oppose the imposition of wind farms on their doorsteps have highlighted it for years. They win the first battle when the local authority rejects the plan – then lose the second when a lone Scottish Government reporter uphold the appeal.
Mr Greer's suggestion, then, that the Lomond Banks case represents an 'anti-democratic outrage' strikes some as a bit rich.
Graham Lang, the chairman of Scotland Against Spin, says: 'We have no sympathy for him or his party who have chosen to ignore that the same scenario has been played out on an almost weekly basis for the past two decades in rural communities throughout Scotland.
'Mr Greer must be aware of this but has never complained when his beloved green energy developments are granted planning permission against the wishes of the majority of local residents.'
For his part, the Green MSP argues these installations are about 'keeping the lights on across the country'.
'However, no one could argue that Flamingo Land is of national importance to Scotland.'
The lone planning official's ruling was certainly welcomed in some quarters.
Lomond Banks development director Jim Paterson said the company was 'delighted' by the decision, adding: 'As we look beyond today's decision, we remain committed to being a strong and valued contributor to the local economy and we look forward to progressing with our proposals as we now consider detailed planning.'
Meanwhile Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, a group which has long campaigned in favour of the resort, said the reporter had 'resoundingly demolished' the arguments for opposing it.
Responding to the allegations put to it by the Mail, including the claim that Flamingo Land was 'courted', leaving the Scottish Government conflicted, a spokesman said: 'These claims are untrue. The independent reporter is an experienced planning professional who provides an objective planning judgement.'
Will the Scottish Parliament and the 155,000 who campaigned against Flamingo Land accept that answer? Or will they drag democratically accountable Ministers, kicking and screaming, into the spotlight?
The last chapter in a story the SNP government are anxious to close the book on may not yet be written.