By Bill Heaney
Today’s the day for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park to come to a decision on whether to grant planning permission for the Flamingoland leisure resort in Balloch, Loch Lomondside.
Extensive arrangements are in place for a site visit and public meeting, but the whole business could turn out to be a waste of time and public money if it is established that there is a conflict of interest.
It will be claimed that it was illegal for the Park board members bar one to endorse the £40 million project before coming to a final decision, and that the proposal will now have to be abandoned.
Local board member Sid Perrie told The Dumbarton Democrat that : “Everyone but me voted for it. I never made a fuss so they would vote it through because I knew a planning authority should not be making such statements.
“I abstained in December and voted against in June. The minute shows it was passed by a majority. I was that minority!”
Mr Perrie, pictured right, said the National park authority sent the following note to all board members:
“In order to ensure our decision making is robust and to reduce the risk of a future legal challenge it is essential that all members carefully consider whether they are conflicted in the decision making of this application.
“This includes, but is not limited to, considering any public statements you may have made (past and present) expressing views on planning or related issues in respect of Application 2022/0157/PPP (including the previous application 2018/0133/PPP on the site that was withdrawn), the proposed site, connections to the applicant (including close family connections), connections to lobbying or campaigning groups, and financial interests.”
The draft National Park Partnership Plan considered by the LLTNPA Board at the meeting on 13th March 2023 included this paragraph:
” Significant new development is not envisaged to be required beyond that already identified in the current National Park and already in the pipeline for delivery.
“Development that will meet the strategic needs of the National Park and adjoining areas at Balloch and Callander is still considered necessary, as well as a focus on addressing vacant and derelict sites at Arrochar and Tarbet.”
Mr Perrie said: “The significant new development at Balloch it refers to is Flamingoland. It cannot be anything else because the Flamingoland proposal includes every last piece of available land left undeveloped in Balloch.
“There have been no other significant new proposals beyond what was envisaged in Flamingoland. Heather Reid [the Park board convener, pictured left] has already replied to the letter sent from the Balloch and Haldane Community Council .
“She claimed, they did not know they were being asked about Flamingoland and what was before them could refer to any one of a number of developments at Balloch. That’s easy to check and to find out that it is demonstrably not true.
“The minute of the meeting records no questions or concerns were raised about this and went on to record the following:
DECISION: Members agreed to:
• Approve the Draft National Park Partnership Plan attached as Appendix 1 for the purposes of a formal 12-week consultation commencing in April 2023.
• Agree to delegate final editorial adjustments and document and engagement design to officers.”
Mr Perrie says there is nothing in the minute to record how this decision was reached or whether it was unanimous.
He claims it is possible therefore that not all the board members present (Heather Reid (Convener) (HR), Martin Earl (ME), Sarah Drummond (SD), David Fettes (DF), Christopher Spray (CS), Maurice Corry (MC), William Sinclair (WS), Gerry McGarvey (GM) (until Item 13), Rhona Brock (RB), Sid Perrie (SP) and Richard Johnson (RJ) endorsed the Flamingo Land planning application as being “in the pipeline for delivery” or as “still considered necessary”.
Mr Perrie said: “However, what is does show is that the majority of the board expressed views on the proposed site and, in the absence of any of alternative development proposal the reference to ‘in the pipeline’ can only be a reference to the Flamingo Land planning application.”
In the final draft of the National Park Partnership Plan considered by the Board on 11thDecember 2023 this paragraph had been amended by staff to read as follows:
“There continues to be considerable development interest in the Park, mainly for housing and tourism-related developments, however some places do not have capacity for more development due to environmental constraints or lack of rural infrastructure.
“Beyond what has already been identified in the current National Park Local Development Plan and is already in the pipeline for delivery, it is not envisaged that any significant new sites for development will be needed in the period of this Plan.”
Mr Perrie added: “The only significant development in the local development plan is Flamingoland. There is nothing else.
“The reference to Balloch – along with four other references to our village – made in the draft plan had been removed along with the reference to developments ‘considered necessary’. However, the reference to ‘already in the pipeline for delivery’ clearly includes the Flamingo Land development.
“The minute of the meeting, approved in March, records the following members were present: Heather Reid (Convener) (HR); Martin Earl (ME); Sarah Drummond (SD); Christopher Spray (CS); Maurice Corry (MC); William Sinclair (WS) Chris Kane (CK); Rhona Brock (RB); Sid Perrie (SP) Richard Johnson (RJ); Ronnie Erskine (RE); Claire Chapman (CC); David Mackie (DM); Hazel Sorrell (HZ); Colin Lee (CL) and that they agreed the following by a “majority decision” without recording how individuals voted:
“DECISION: Members agreed to:
• Approve the Final National Park Partnership Plan attached as Appendix 1 for submission to Scottish Ministers for approval under the terms of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000.”
Mr Perrie maintains: “In taking this decision, therefore, it is clear that the majority of board members including Heather Reid the convener effectively gave their backing to the Flamingo Land development nine months ago and should now absent themselves, according to the stipulations in your email and the revised code of conduct you adopted in June, from the decision-making process.
“For reference we quote what we regard as relevant clauses from Section 7, ‘Taking Decisions on Quasi-Judicial or Regulatory Applications’ in the Code of Conduct:
“7.1. I need to be especially vigilant when I am making a decision on a quasi-judicial or regulatory application. For these applications, I need to ensure there is a proper and fair hearing of the application and I must avoid any impression of bias in the whole decision-making process.
“By endorsing Flamingo Land’s proposed development at Balloch (also known as Lomond Banks) as necessary and in the pipeline board members have clearly pre-judged the application.
“7.2. I may deal with many types of quasi-judicial or regulatory applications. Depending on the type of application that is made, there will be often be a formal, statutory decision-making process for its consideration and outcome.
“There may also be formal legal routes to challenge decisions made on these applications and for this reason I must be aware that my own personal responsibility to ensure a proper and fair hearing has wider consequences for the National Park Authority’s reputation and financial liabilities in the event of any challenge.
“Those members who have endorsed the Flamingo Land application in the National Park Partnership Plan have clearly failed in their personal responsibility to ensure a proper and fear hearing and are exposing the LLTNPA to significant reputational and financial damage.
“7.4. In dealing with these applications, I WILL:
a) throughout my involvement with the entire application process act fairly and be seen to act fairly.
b) declare interests where required in terms of Section 5 of this Code and leave the meeting until the matter has been determined.
c) deal fairly and impartially with all parties involved in the application.
d) tell those who may be seeking to influence me outwith the proper decision-making process that I will not formulate an opinion on any particular application until all information is available to all decision-makers and has been duly considered at the relevant meeting.
“Clearly those members who voted to approve the draft and/or final partnership plan have formulated an opinion in advance of the determination of the application and therefore should not participate in the process.”
7.5. In dealing with such applications, I WILL NOT:
a) pre-judge or demonstrate bias or be seen to pre-judge or demonstrate bias.
b) indicate or imply support for or opposition to an application nor indicate my voting intention prior to the appropriate meeting where the application will be considered.
The members who approved the documents that said Lomond Banks is “necessary” and “in the pipeline for delivery” have pre-judged the application and demonstrated bias.
7.8. For policy and strategic issues under which individual applications may subsequently be decided, I WILL NOT:
express any view that suggests I have a closed mind on the policy or strategic issue regardless of any material considerations affecting that issue.
Mr Perrie claimed: “Clearly, those Board Members who endorsed the development as necessary and, in the pipeline, do have closed minds – they have excluded alternatives including those that people in the local community have never had a chance to articulate.”
7.9. If I intend to be involved in the decision-making for any quasi-judicial or regulatory application, I WILL NOT:
Compromise myself or the National Park Authority by creating a perception of a conflict of interest. Once again you have clearly made up your mind so you have a conflict of interest and should not take part in the decision making.
Mr Perrie is adamant: “Clearly those members who endorsed the draft and final NPPP have created a perception of conflict of interest and therefore cannot compromise themselves or the Park Authority by participating in the decision-making process.”