 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 4060 in the name of Ross Greer on save Loch Lomond. This debate will be conducted without any questions being put. Again, I'd ask members who wish to participate to press the request and speak buttons now as soon as possible, and I invite Ross Greer to open the debate for around seven minutes, Mr Greer. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank members from across the Parliament for supporting the motion and helping to secure the debate this evening. This is not the first debate that I brought on this issue to Parliament. Three years ago, a planning application was submitted that attracted more discussion and interest than any other local issue in the west of Scotland in the six years that I have been an MSP. It is clear to me that it is so deeply emotive to people because of the importance of Loch Lomond to the communities who live there, to people across Scotland and to those from further afield who have been fortunate enough to visit our world-famous national park. It is particularly important to many of my constituents and others across the central belt who may not live in Baloch, but who are able to access everything that Loch Lomond has to offer through the gateway that Baloch is. 40 minutes on the train from Glasgow and you'll be in one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world. Fomingo land's first application back in 2018 and 2019 was riddled with problems. Their own environmental impact assessment made for particularly grim reading. Speaking of, among other things, damage to ancient woodland, pollution of standing and running water, red squirrel and otter fatalities and a host of other environmental concerns. Iconic views were to be interrupted by a water park and hotel on the shoreline. The majority of the site would be handed over from public ownership under the control of Scottish Enterprise to the ownership of a private company based hundreds of miles away and whose profits certainly would not be reinvested in the local economy. 60,000 objections were lodged to making Fomingo land the most unpopular planning application in Scottish history. Westin-Bartonshire Council formally opposed the plans, as did Rambour Scotland, The Woodland Trust and a number of other local groups. When national park planning officers recommended refusal of the plans, Fomingo land saw the writing on the wall and pulled their application. We won and I want to once again thank everyone who contributed to that victory, including members who are here for the debate this evening. During the campaign, local residents came together at a meeting to consider what Baloch in the wider area needed, what a positive, alternative development would look like. The list of ideas suggested by residents included a municipal watersport centre, camping and motorhome facilities, a backpacker hostel, a forest school, a heritage centre, a museum and much more. There was significant interest in developments around ecotourism, affordability, educational benefit and recognising Baloch as an accessible base for exploring both sides of the Loch were identified as priorities. However, the exclusivity agreement between Fomingo land and the Scottish Enterprise made it impossible to progress any of those alternatives. Despite its comprehensive rejection, Fomingo land is now back with another application, and it sounds eerily familiar. 127 self-catering lodges, a hotel, a water park, a monorail, brewery and more. Our campaign has secured one important concession already. Most of the ancient woodland at Drumkin and Woods has been removed entirely from the development that would still form part of the site and be sold to Fomingo land, putting it at risk of future development. Fomingo land had previously told me directly that their plans were not financially viable without development there in the ancient woodland, so it is easy to see why the community simply does not trust them as custodians of this very special location. Just under half a hectare of ancient woodland is still at direct risk from this application, which is one of the reasons why the woodland trust has joined us once again in objecting to Fomingo land's plans. The environmental impact assessment says that that area of ancient woodland, about two thirds the size of the pitch at Hamden, will be removed in the construction phase of the development. Lost of ancient woodland means permanent damage and is totally unacceptable when we are facing such a stark biodiversity and climate crisis, as the Scottish Government acknowledged earlier this week. The new team overseeing this application has made a number of other small improvements such as reducing the height of the hotel and the water park complex, and they have taken a more professional approach this time. Admittedly, though, the bar was set pretty low last time. I have not had any petulant insults about my age or apparent achievements from the chief executive. They have not threatened me with defamation action from quoting from their own environmental impact assessment. Their last attempt truly was the definition of a cowboy operation. Let us not be under any illusion about these apparent improvements, though. This new application is still utterly inappropriate and the grounds for objections still stand. The scale of development is huge. It would have a drastic impact on a well-visited national park location on the lockshore. Space used freely for leisure by local residents and visitors alike would become part of a branded development, meaning that non-paying visitors would feel like second-class citizens behind those who could afford the premium to rent a lodge. In response to my raising these access concerns with the First Minister, the developers issued a press release with an access pledge. The pledge just reiterates their basic legal obligations and does not address the unavoidable restrictions that come when open space becomes a private holiday park. The whole development would be focused on flamingo land paying customers to the detriment of those local residents and other visitors who just want to enjoy the accessible lockside location. Why else would the monorail link the restaurant with the upper floor of the water park? There is potential here to link the shore with the railway station, restoring a public transport link to the lock for people with lower mobility in particular. In practice, it will simply link two parts of an exclusive resort with each other without wider community benefit. Most of the site would be handed over from public ownership into the hands of a private theme park operator based hundreds of miles away. The local community have stood firm against the idea of land owned and looked after on their behalf being passed to a company who exists only to profit from it. As I mentioned a minute ago, residents' alternative ideas, which could not be progressed due to the exclusivity agreement, included a community development trust or community interest company model, so that any profits made by something like a local arts venue, for example, would be kept in the community. As we face a climate emergency, major new developments, especially in national parks, have a responsibility to play their part in tackling the crisis. That is clearly not the case with this development, which will bring in substantial additional traffic on local roads. The A82 up the west side of the lock is infamous for congestion during tourist season, as it is. That concern was key to West Dunbartonshire Council's objection to the first application, and I would urge them to bear it in mind as they prepare a position on this new proposal, given that the scale of the development and the expected traffic levels remain the same. Baloch and the wider national park need to see significant improvements in public transport, not doubling down on car-centric developments. A truly co-ordinated and easily accessible public transport and active travel plan is needed for all of Loch Lomond and the Trossicks national park. I have been discussing a travel strategy with the park authority and others for a while now, and some progress has been made. There is now a national park journey planner app, plans for shuttle buses are being actively worked on, and a sustainable travel and modal shift report is in progress, which would present a clearer picture of the barriers and the opportunities for reduction of car use within the park. I would welcome interest from the Government in working with the park authority and local councils to deliver a comprehensive transport master plan for the park. However, it is not good enough for Fomingo land to simply stand by and expect public bodies to solve traffic problems that they would be creating. A development like that is incompatible with the park's own plans to contribute towards Scotland's climate targets. The hospital watch campaign has also raised its concerns with me about the pressure that that could put on local services at the Vale of Leven hospital, where long-standing capacity issues will be familiar to many members here. It is a serious concern and I expect both the council and the park to take it into account. An overwhelming majority of my constituents are clear that they do not want a scar on the protected woodland, the riverbank and the lockshore. They do not object in principle to redeveloping wood bank houses, as we made clear last time, but they certainly do not want 127 lodges providing holidays that many local residents would struggle to afford, attracting thousands more cars and sending profits to corporations based far from the local area. People are sick of Fomingo land patronising an incorrect message that there is no alternative and that their plan is the only way to prevent misery and unemployment in the Vale of Leven, that the only choice is that this resort or baloch will be forever a neglected and derelict wasteland. We have more ambition for baloch than they do. The community has other ideas, dozens of them. Those alternative proposals could provide sustainable and quality jobs, educational benefits and far more, while preserving the stunning natural beauty that makes Loch Lomond a global destination. In contrast, Fomingo land's plan is frankly boring, generic and expensive. It does nothing to enhance Baloch's position as a gateway to the national park. It is not what we need to support the local economy and it is certainly not what we need to tackle the climate emergency. No real consideration has been given to the community or the local environment. I want to encourage members across all parties, as well as members of the public who are watching, to join me in lodging strong objections to those plans. In closing, I realise that, as this is a live planning application, the minister is severely constrained in what he is able to say, so I will not take offence if his contribution is shorter than what would normally be the case for a Government response to a member's debate, but the Government knows the strength of feeling about this development, both locally and nationally. People care deeply about Loch Lomond, they are proud of it and they want to see it enhanced, not cheapened. Our campaign's commitment to save Loch Lomond is unwavering, and I ask everyone who feels the same to join us to help us to win this fight once again. Thank you very much, Mr Greer. He appeared to have used some of the time allocation for the minister, but I am sure he will not be too disappointed. We now move to the open debate. I call Rona Mackay. We will be followed by Pam Gosel for around four minutes. I am pleased to be speaking in today's debate and thank my colleague Ross Greer for raising this very important issue in the chamber. As Ross Greer has explained, this is the second application that has been lodged by this developer with the first application reportedly having been withdrawn following a record 60,000 objections after a robust campaign from the local residents and the Save Loch Lomond campaign. I am proud to say that I love Loch Lomond. I have been going there for as long as I can remember for family days out, celebrations, dog walks and just generally to soak up the peace and beauty of this dual in Scotland's countryside. Nowadays, it has been just a 30-minute drive from my constituency of Strathkelver and Bearsden, and I try to get there as often as time allows. Loch Lomond and Introsyck's national park is home to 21 Monroe's, 19 Corbyn's, none of them are inclined by me, I hasten to add, and 22 large lochs, and that's pretty phenomenal by anyone's standards. It's clear that the Flamingo land developers have made a concession in order to progress their plans, which has been to move the proposed lodges in Drumkimin Woods to another part of the development. They're still there, of course, just not on that site of the woods. We seem to prove the fact that the developers had no real thought for the aesthetic beauty of the area in the first place when they've submitted their original proposals. To be clear, I'm not anti-development and I don't want to keep Scotland in aspect, but I don't believe that the level of this development is appropriate for an area of such natural beauty. The developers may argue that it will attract tourism and money to the area, but I'd argue that a more modest proposal would do that, and Ross Greer has outlined that very well. Indeed, in my experience, tourists flock to the national park whenever the sun shines, and it's done very nicely without a fairground attraction. Indeed, after lockdown restrictions ended in 2020 and 2021, there was a 200 per cent surge in traffic heading for Loch Lomond, and in several occasions cars were turned back from approaching lus due to the sheer volume. Loch Lomond will always attract tourists and generations of family who regularly flock there to experience the wonder of that area. I want people to come to Scotland from all over the world to enjoy our wonderful locks and tourist attractions with tasteful facilities that we've all come to expect. All of this is crucial, Presiding Officer, but that's before we even mention the inevitable environmental damage to the area, the disruption to wildlife, the pressure on local roads and the disrespecting public act test to Drum Kimmond Woods, as Ross Greer mentioned. There's also the principle of selling off precious public land to a private developer for profit. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. Do we want to sacrifice a significant part of our Loch Lomond and Trossach's national park for big business? I certainly don't. Loch Lomond is one of Scotland's greatest landmarks, and maintaining its integrity must be of paramount importance. Furthermore, our environmental heritage should not be sullied by big business intent in making profit. Rejecting those submitted proposals will send a clear message to developers. Leave our bonnie banks alone and let nature be the attraction. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a west of Scotland MSP, I'm honoured to have places of outstanding natural beauty in my region, including Loch Lomond and the surrounding Loch Lomond and Trossach's national park. With there being just two national parks in Scotland, I'm proud to have a significant amount of one of those parks in my region. Members will agree that areas such as this are what make Scotland a truly special place to live, and protecting those areas and the communities within them should always be a priority. I'm therefore clear that proposals such as this should only go ahead when the concerns of local communities have been addressed. There have been many objections raised against those proposals since Loch Lomond banks were submitted plans in 2018. Over 60,000 objections were submitted, and the proposals were enormously rejected by elected members of the West Dunbartonshire Council in their role as statutory consultancy. However, it is positive to see that, in their new proposals, Lomond banks have tried to address some of the concerns that were raised previously and are engaging with the communities, and those plans will affect to ensure that they develop the development that is able to deliver its potential benefits to the local economy. While I acknowledge the £40 million investment with economic benefits from Lomond banks, I still have concerns over six particular areas. The first anti-show social behaviour and problems with littering in and around Baloch is already a serious problem during the summer months, and residents are rightly concerned about this becoming even worse if the development goes ahead. Secondly, there also needs to be more safeguarding of natural environments around the proposed site. There should be further assurances that there will be no pollution to Loch Lomond itself. Thirdly, despite Lomond banks stating that drumming and woods will be protected from the development, the Woodland Trust has warned that ancient woodland might still be damaged by those proposals. Fourthly, developments such as that should also come with an economic development plan, and truly that works for interests of local economy. It is possible to create a system that complements existing local businesses instead of competing with them, but it remains to be seen in the new proposals that this balance will be achieved. Fifthly, we need to see a well-thought-out workforce plan for the site that works alongside existing skills pool and takes account of existing shortage of local labour. Last but not least, those issues are in addition to many concerns that have been raised about the already stretched local infrastructure, including the local road network. When done properly, developments such as that can be a great benefit to all parties, but that can only happen when those projects are inclusive and include local residents and businesses. Going forward, I would urge Lomond banks to continue to work constructively with local communities to address those concerns, and I would encourage concerned residents or businesses to make sure that their views are known. I am not against those types of developments by default. In fact, I try to support them wherever possible, but each development has to be the right for local communities and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. I am no stranger to working with developments that have a positive overall outcome, and I hope that Lomond banks will work around the points that I have raised today to take those plans forward. I now invite Jackie Baillie to contribute for around four minutes to Ms Baillie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me start by congratulating Ross Greer on securing debating time to explore the current planning application by Lomond banks, most commonly known as Flamingoland, to develop West Riverside at Ballach. Before I come on to the application itself, let me just note that the land belongs to Scottish Enterprise, a public agency that is answerable to Scottish ministers. Although I signed Ross Greer's motion and was happy to do so, I am not as a matter of principle opposed to the sale of public land for the right development. The question, of course, is whether that is the right development for the gateway to Scotland's first national park and, in my view, the most beautiful national park in Scotland. If the Scottish Government does not believe that to be the case, it absolutely wonders why it is agreeing to sell the land that it owns. Now that Ross Greer's colleagues form part of government, I am hopeful that we could perhaps pursue that point and whether a community buy-out would be considered. The other aspect to this is that I have no doubt that Lomond banks will receive grants from Scottish Enterprise, perhaps in the form of their replacement for regional selective assistance. I cannot help but wonder whether that will exceed the capital receipt from the sale of the land so that, in effect, we are paying them to go there. I would be grateful in the interests of transparency if the minister will, in due course, publish the anticipated figures. However, let me turn to the application itself. I opposed it the first time around and it is fair to say that opinion in the community is divided. Will it bring jobs? Will it help local businesses? Does that outweigh environmental concerns? What about our local roads? Will they cope? Those are just some of the questions in people's minds. That is why I am engaging in a local community consultation to get people's views and I am happy to share the results of that on a cross-party basis. The application itself is not substantially different to the previous application three years ago. It is fair to say that the key difference is the removal of the 32 self-catering lodges previously planned for drumkin and wood. Nevertheless, concerns remain about drumkin and wood, captured by the briefing from the woodland trust and, indeed, in correspondence that I have had from local residents about the impact of the development on a popular local area of important ancient woodland. That is a significant concern that needs to be addressed. Jobs have always been a key consideration for me. The project will apparently create 80 full-time jobs, 120 part-time jobs, and they have agreed to pay the real living wage, which is an improvement on their previous position. However, I would want to see much more robust pledges being developed about local jobs and fair work in the coming weeks. However, I also want to see guarantees on the use of local supply chains and partnerships with other local tourism businesses. Although that may not be part of the planning process, it is a critical consideration for the community, and we should not accept anything less from any developer at all. There is a question for me about density. We are talking about two hotels, 127 self-catering lodges and departments. That is a lot of visitors not just at the height of the season, but it is common with those types of projects all year round. The local roads infrastructure is poor. I have lost count of how many times I have been stuck on the A82 in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Adding any additional volume of traffic causes me concern. I know that there is a railway station at Baloch, and I like plans for the monorail. However, realistically, if any of us was going for a self-catering holiday, we would take our cars. We absolutely would, and that will have a negative impact on infrastructure. I will weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the application, but I will be absolutely influenced by the views of local people. That application falls to the national park to be considered. It would be helpful to clarify what role lawness later as the minister responsible for national parks will have in this, or whether it will fall to Tom Arthur, who has responsibility for planning. I am not interested in commenting on the substance with them, but I think that the process is important, particularly given the interests of the Greens and their position in government. In the meantime, in conclusion, it is right to carefully consider what local people tell us that they want to happen, because, after all, it is their home. I invite the minister to respond to the debate for around seven minutes. Good luck, Presiding Officer, with the seven minutes. Thank you for this opportunity to close the debate on the motion brought here by Ross Greer. Ironically, it is my first member's debate to close as a minister. As everything in my career in this chamber is always fraught with challenges, but I will be unable to take any interventions from colleagues, mainly due to the fact, as Mr Greer has already stated, that it is a live planning application. I welcome members' continued interest in Loch Lomond and Trossop's national park and the consideration that has gone into raising those concerns in today's debate. The Scottish Government is committed to our national parks and, as you know, we intend to designate at least one new national park by the end of this parliamentary session. It is, of course, for members to bring forward whatever motions they consider appropriate for consideration at members' businesses. In this case, because the members' business debate is focused on a live planning application, it raises procedural difficulties for myself and the Parliament. As required by the Scottish Ministerial Code, ministers are restricted from commenting publicly on live planning applications, and that could potentially prejudice the final decision. The challenge of such debates was the subject of correspondence in 2014 between Joe Fitzpatrick, as my predecessor as Minister for Parliamentary Business, and Stuart Stevenson in his capacity as the then convener for standards, procedures and public appointments committee. The strict limitations on the Scottish Government in commenting on live application was noted, however, the committee was unable to identify changes to procedures to address this issue without restricting the topics that members could raise at members' business. Applications for planning permission are dealt with in the first instance by the relevant planning authority. In this case, that is the Loch Lomond and Trossop's national park authority. Planning decisions within the national park are required to be taken having regard to the national park plan and in accordance with the Loch Lomond and Trossop's local development plan, unless material consideration indicates otherwise. Recognising and respecting the important role of the planning authorities in making decisions in future developments of their area is rare for ministers to intervene in a live planning application, and they will only do so where matters of national interests are at stake. Members will be aware that the Scottish Government is currently working towards a finalised national planning framework, the NPF4, to be laid before Parliament for approval before adoption by Scottish ministers. The draft NPF explains how we will work together to build sustainable, livable, productive and distinctive places. Addressing climate change and nature recovery are key priorities, and once finalised, NPF4 will help to provide a clear policy framework for decision makers. You will, Presiding Officer, appreciate that I cannot comment on the merits of this live application, and once again I thank everyone for giving me the opportunity to take part in today's debate. Minister, that concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of Parliament.