The LLTNPA & WDC’s proposed plan for the Pierhead at Balloch – why now and what are the implications?

By Nick Kempe on Nov 29, 2024 11:00 am

 This Saturday Page/Park architects, who are acting on behalf of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) and West Dunbartonshire Council, are holding a public “engagement event” at the pierhead in Balloch. 

What is now described as an “Improvement Action Plan” was, back in June, called  a masterplan as I explained recently in my post on the Rescue Boat planning application which lies within the area which would be covered by the plan (see here). This post will take a further look at why the LLTNPA are pushing this plan now and its potential implications.

Page/Park have set up a website for the consultation (see here), which contains some useful background information, and a short online survey (see here) which is open until 13th December.

Background to the proposal

The Page/Park website contains a Q and A section which explains the origins of the proposal: 

This is quite true but it omitted to mention the review for the pierhead area should have been COMPLETED by 2021 at latest and the collaborative design was to maximise integration with the rest of the Riverside Site:

Nor did the answer mention that one of the short-term actions from the charrette was to “Develop Riverside Site”.  At the time the charrette action plan was agreed in 2016,the LLTNPA and Scottish Enterprise had secretly appointed Flamingo Land as preferred developer for the site but kept this news rom the public (see here).  The Pierhead Review, therefore, appears to have been originally intended as a means of helping make the Flamingo Land development happen. My guess is that the review was then shelved because as criticism of Flamingo Land’s proposals developed, going ahead with it would have created a forum for opponents.  The origins of the proposed plan therefore stink and one can question why the LLTNPA, having failed to deliver on so many of the actions from the charrette (see here), now wishes to press ahead with this one?The need for an answer to that question is reinforced by the fact that the scope of the plan, described as the “Study Area” on Park/Page’s website excludes the land earmarked for Flamingo Land’s aparthotel and leisure complex:

Screenshot credit Park/Page with annotations in red showing approx position of the buildings proposed by Flamingo Land at the pierhead and the recently approved location for the Rescue Boat. 

Why?  It makes absolutely no sense from a planning perspective to leave out this key area of land which fronts onto Drumkinnon Bay. In my view the explanation is unlikely to lie in the LLTNPA not wanting to put barriers in the way of Flamingo Land appealing their decision to refuse planning permission.  Developers have three months to appeal and that period will be up mid-December so the LLTNPA could have easily waited to see what happened.   Rather, I think its because when it comes to “improvements” the LLTNPA is focussed on the land they control and manage to the exclusion of everything else: 

Map showing landownership and management at the Pierhead and how the LLTNPA has no interest in the land by Drumkinnon Bay that is owned by Scottish Enterprise and was to be the site of the Flamingo Land development. The yellow, black and pink annotations show the approx location of the rescue boat development. Map credit LLTNPA 2018.

Park/Page’s Q and A may therefore be correct when it says: 

The answer is revealing however.  Note how it describes the Improvement Action Plan as being “for Balloch”, when it is just the land the LLTNPA and WDC own and manage. The two public authorities are equating their interests to those of the village of Balloch – they are not the same!  And if the Improvement Action Plan is seeking “to fully integrate” the Rescue Boat site, why doesn’t it “fully integrate” the land managed by Scottish Enterprise fronting Drumkinnon Bay?

Another fake consultation

With the plan limited to the areas where the LLTNPA and WDC have a direct interest, it is inconceivable that they don’t already have ideas of what they want to do on their land.  Indeed, as I argued in my post on the Rescue Boat planning application  LLTNPA staff could not have asked their Board to approve an indicative budget of £2,400,000 unless they had plans of what they wanted to do. 

There is absolutely NO mention of the LLTNPA and WDC’s ideas and intention in the consultation documentation.  Instead, the public are being asked some vague questions the answers to which the LLTNPA will interpret any way they choose.  A real consultation would have come with a non-exhaustive list of potential options for using the land – including the future of the Maid of the Loch, the use of the Duncan Mills slipway, the potential for a watersports centre (see here) etc but there is no mention of any of that at all.  At present it looks as if the LLTNPA’s real intention is another very expensive upgrade to one of their car parks as has happened at Tarbet (see here). 

It is worth noting here that before the public consultation event Park/Page was asked to organise a two and a half hour private workshop with selected stakeholders on 11th November to which, I understand, the locally elected member of the LLTNPA Board for Balloch was not even invited.  I have submitted an FOI request to try and understand what is really going on. 

While the LLTNPA has advertised the consultation event on Balloch, both the Balloch and Haldane Community Council (BHCC) and Save Loch Lomond only appear to have been informed about the event recently and its only appeared on their FB pages this week.  With the consultation finishing in December there has been no time for te BHCC to arrange their own consultation so that they can represent local opinion. That is wrong. 

The BHCC, through the Lomond South Community Development Trust, has registered an interest in an asset transfer for the area and should have been consulted about the need for a plan for the pierhead in the first place and then its scope.  Instead, the LLTNPA gives the appearance of trying to rush through a plan for the pierhead BEFORE the Community Development Trust is fully up and running, putting its interests before those of the local community.

A Local Place Plan for Balloch and outdoor recreation plan should come first

Source: Park/Page pierhead website 

The suggestion in this response that you can have two separate plans, one led by the LLTNPA and one led by the local community is totally wrong.  Whatever happens at the pierhead affects the rest of Balloch, particularly as a large part of the area is used for car parking.  Whatever decisions are made about those car parks, whether they are expanded, reduced or retain their current capacity, has  consequences for traffic and parking in the rest of the village. 

The inter-connectedness of parking capacity and traffic was in fact recognised in the charrette and WDC was meant to lead on the development of a “parking strategy” for the village: 

WDC never referred to any parking strategy for their village in their response to the Flamingo Land Planning Application and failed to acknowledge or act on local concerns about the traffic implications for the village.  That was despite the  local MSP, Jackie Baillie, conducting a survey which found that traffic and parking were the number one concern of local residents when it came to the Flamingo Land application.It is likely to be same with the Pierhead.  However there is no indication in the consultation on what the plans of LLTNPA are at the Pierhead and WDC’s overall goal remains “maximising parking availability”.  All that the consultation asks is whether they have experienced problems with traffic and parking.  There is nothing about the proposed solutions the LLTNPA have been considering. 

In fact, if you read through the spin and the jargon in the explanatory materials for the consultation, it is all about the parking arrangements on the land owned and managed by WDC and LLTNPA

Improving the functionality of the pierhead basically means how people get there, improving the appearance means landscaping the car parks and the reference to the support of the landowners tells you this is something the LLTNPA want.

So why not just say so?  The answer is that if they did so openly, the need to develop a Local Place Plan for the whole of the village first would be obvious. 

Assuming the Flamingo Land development doesn’t go ahead, there are two main sources of demand for parking at the Pierhead.   The first is the Maid of the Loch which has always seen parking as being essential to attract visitors.  In my view there are alternatives, such as electric transit vehicles connecting the pierhead area to the railway station and the Lomond Shores car parks but that requires a wider plan than for the pierhead.

The second main driver of demand is the Duncan Mills slipway which is now the ONLY public launching point for boats on Loch Lomond since LLTNPA senior management closed Milarrochy Bay without any consultation six years ago (see here).  In fact two boat launching were never enough but intsead of dispersing demand, the LLTNPA have concentrated it in one place.  That has created problems for boaters, local residents and other visitors.  On popular days at the beginning and end of the main boating season there is simply not enough space for all the vehicles and trailers to park at the pierhead. Botched visitor management has created chaos. 

I understand there is now talk of forcing people who need to park their cars and trailers after launching their boats to do so in the overflow car park on the far side of Drumkinnon Woods. That could increase the congestion further and have knock on impacts for Lomond Shores.  It will also inconvenience the public who want to launch their boats and enjoy Loch Lomond no end.

If the LLTNPA really wants to solve the problems it has caused by forcing lots of cars and boat trailers into one place, it needs far more than a plan for the pierhead.  It needs to resuscitate the Outdoor Recreation Plan it scrapped (see here) and build into that proper provision for boat launching.

Undermining the local community

In the Q and A above, it is claimed that the Local Place Plan ”is a community led plan” and that “The Community Council has not yet started to prepare its local plan plan”, as if the entire responsibility for Balloch not having a Local Plan Plan lay with the local community. 

The truth is that while the LLTNPA have been helping local communities all over the rest of the National Park area to prepare local place plans (see above),  Balloch, which is the largest settlement in the National Park, was left out. That in my view was not an accident.  The LLTNPA senior management who were backing the Flamingo Land application did not want to help the local community in Balloch to do anything that might have got in the way of it going ahead or of developing an alternative. 

Having provided resources to other local communities to develop their local place plans, the LLTNPA now appear to be saying they don’t have the resources available to help Balloch.  That is complete poppycock.  The LLTNPA, if it so wished, could have easily diverted all the resources it’s devoting to the Pierhead Plan and the £2.4 million it has identified for implementing that to the Community Development Trust.  It has chosen not to do so and put its own interests first.  No surprise there! 

The BHCC and Community Development Trust needs to respond to the challenge, call a public meeting to discuss ideas for the whole of Balloch and demand that the development of the Pierhead Improvement Plan is put on hold until a Local Place Plan and Outdoor Recreation Plan which address the wider issues have been put in place. 

The post The LLTNPA & WDC’s proposed plan for the Pierhead at Balloch – why now and what are the implications? appeared first on parkswatchscotland.