 Cyngorol mewn cyntafol o unrhyw o'r Swinidog arweithio i gwelltyn nhw. Felly, rydyn ni'n fawr i gael reifat peth i'r ddioedd i ddweud. Rydyn ni'n ddweud â'i cyfrifysgau ysgrifesfaith안 hefyd, rydyn ni'n ddweud â'r reddydd am gael ddeilant gŵr am rhwynt-o-ddeilad amdolol i ddweud ar gwrth diwrnod ysgol, ac rydyn ni'n ddweud ar ysgrifesfaithan busnes i ddweud a fawr i arnyn nhw. maes yma hwnnw yna gan gwybod ein gwybod ffremdd. A atgoi'r ysthysgau a'u gwisi ar weithiau Ffongolans yn gweithio. Dwi gwybod, hynny, nad oedd rhaid i gwisiau i chi i gwybod eich stori fusiom a'u gweithio'r pwynt ar hyn nesaf. Rwy'n ysthysgau i chi gyrfa mwy o'r proses datblygu, ac rwy'n cymdeinidio'r sydd yn ddig مشag yng CONI yn dweud ddim yn gweithio'r ysgrifennu Fylmingoland's first formal application was lodged and dealt with four years ago. The application was for a tourist resort and a massive scale, sitting on the banks of Loch Lomond at Balach on what is currently largely publicly owned land. The plans included 125 woodland lodges, largely to be situated in the ancient woodland at Drumkinan Woods, as well as a hotel, a waterpark, a monorail and more. Iconic lock side views were to be interrupted by buildings that local residents quite fairly described as garish. Publicly owned land was to be used to generate profits for a private company based hundreds of miles away in Yorkshire, which certainly would not be reinvesting it in the local community and economy. Fylmingoland's own environmental impact assessment was made for particularly grim readings. 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. That was from their own documentation. As you may recall, local residents and I formed the Save Loch Lomond campaign, through which we lodged over 60,000 objections. That made Fylmingoland the most unpopular planning application in Scottish history. We were joined in objecting by the Woodland Trust, Rambour Scotland and Weston-Bartonshire Council. The application was so clearly contrary to local and national planning policy that the national park's own planning officers recommended that their board rejected it. Rather than face that loss, Fylmingoland withdrew their application with just days to go before the hearing. That was in 2019. We knew that they would come back, so it was no surprise that a fresh application was lodged last year. That application was for 127 lodges, two hotels, a water park and monorail, up to 21 apartments, a brewery, a pub, a restaurant, a boath house and all to be served by 393 parking spaces. They tried to squeeze almost as much in as they did the first time, but into a smaller space. They told us that the ancient woodland at Drumkin and Wood had been taken out of the application and lodges moved elsewhere on the site. By any suspicions that Fylmingoland had turned into tree huggers, thanks to our influence for short lift, the details of the plans still showed that an area of Drumkin and Wood, marked in the application as area 10, was earmarked for destruction, as were sections of ancient woodland alongside woodbank house and the proposed boath house. However, even the supposedly saved bulk of Drumkin and Wood may be endangered by those plans. They are currently under the ownership of Scottish Enterprise, a public body. Should planning permission be granted for the site, Fylmingoland can get the woods too. When they were still speaking to me, that is some time ago, Fylmingoland told me that the economic viability of the site rested on being able to develop in the ancient woodland. It is hard to believe that should they take ownership of the woods or even a long-term lease, that they would not seek at some point to exploit them for financial benefit. Last year's plans were seriously flawed, left so many questions unanswered and made a number of contradictory claims. On my behalf, the planning and environmental law expert Ian Cowan submitted a detailed letter of objection flagging every one of those issues to the national park. In response, for which I am grateful, their planning department essentially put the process on hold, demanding that the developer resubmit a number of documents and respond to 16 requests on everything from clarification of contradictory statements on parking provision and ancient woodland loss to how the proposals could possibly meet the high bar set by national planning framework 4. Just two weeks ago, Fylmingoland responded, so that is a timely debate. They have reduced the number of lodges planned to 104 and parking spaces to 372 to allow for the staff and service area to be relocated from area 10, the bit of ancient woodland. That is welcome and I want to congratulate the local residents who worked really hard to protect that bit of drumkin and wood. The ancient woodland does not safe from sell-off and, as is described by the woodland trust briefing circulated to MSPs, other sections of ancient woodland are still under threat. There are so many flaws in this third attempt at a proposal. It is still much bigger than the visitor experience space that is owned in the national park's planning policy. It would be a scar on a world-famous landscape. The landscape and visual impact assessment admits that there would be adverse effects. Fylmingoland keeps telling us that there would be no negative impact on access, but that is simply impossible to achieve. You cannot turn a popular public space for informal recreation into a densely packed, branded and privately owned holiday lodge park without a loss of the freedom to roam. A busy attraction with 372 parking spaces certainly is not compatible with the park's net zero objectives or the Scottish Government's policy of reducing car usage. We are all well aware, too well aware, that Loch Lomond and its communities are overwhelmed by visitors travelling by car through peak tourist season. Speak to any resident of lusts or Balmaha or Balak about the stress of dealing with everything from inconsiderate parking to genuinely dangerous driving and antisocial behaviour. We want people to enjoy Loch Lomond, but we must acknowledge that some of its communities are simply at breaking point. The last thing that any of us would want is the kind of oversaturation of tourism leading to deep seated hostility from residents, which destinations such as Barcelona have experienced. The park is doing excellent work to make visiting the area more sustainable and supporting local residents who are struggling with the impact of high visitor numbers. I know that the minister will not be able to say much about a live planning application and I recognise that that is not his portfolio area, but I would appreciate if he was able to speak a little bit more about the good work that the park is doing to encourage sustainable use. There is one other area about the national park and the park authority that I want to encourage the minister and his colleague Orna Slater to look into. Normally, with a controversial planning application, objectors would be able to contact their councillors directly and make their views heard. Even though councillors on the relevant committee—the planning committee—would not be allowed to express an opinion on the plans, the feedback from residents is an important part of the process. It is unfortunate that Loch Lomond and the Trossach national park is the exception here. Unlike any of the more than 500 other councils and national parks in the UK, the park does not publicise direct contact details for its board members. I know that many of my constituents want to address board members directly, and the fact that they have no means of doing so leaves an unacceptable democratic deficit. The views of the community in this particular case are certainly beyond a doubt. We have had two local surveys now showing opposition by a margin of around three to one. Fomengoland's chief executive said that if the community did not support them, they would walk away. It is very clear that the community does not support them, yet here we are again. Residents certainly do not trust Fomengoland's grand claims. Not only would the substantial increase in traffic on already busy local roads clearly be to the detriment of the community, there is very little belief that the claimed economic benefits will materialise. Fomengoland initially promised 300 jobs for the area. That number is plummeted as the years went on. The eventual impact assessment for the 2019 application stated that the equivalent of just 28 net jobs would be created in the region compared to if Fomengoland did not go ahead. Of course, many of those would be seasonal. The community is not hostile to development. I would certainly welcome the redevelopment of Woodbank House, for example. Fomengoland's are too big, too destructive and come from a developer whose behaviour should frankly disqualify them from playing a role in the life of our national park. The community is not short of alternative ideas for some of the sites, but those can't be taken forward for as long as Fomengoland's exclusivity agreement is in place. With that to be dropped, I think that Scottish Enterprise would get a lot out of actually speaking to residents about what they want. Like in some cases in Drumkin and Wood, for example, that would be for no development to take place. Much-loved, well-used community green spaces are worth protecting, especially when they are also the gateway to our world-famous national park. In closing, 43,000 objections have been lodged to the latest application. The Woodland Trust in Ramboire Scotland has joined us in opposing it once again, and the national trust for Scotland has now also come out against the plans. We are all motivated by a deep love for Fomengoland and a passionate desire to protect it. We have beaten Fomengoland every turn for seven years now, and we are ready to do so again one last time. We are going to save Fomengoland. Thank you very much, Mr Grahame. I now move to the open debate. I call first Jim Fairlie to be followed by Pam Gosel for around four minutes, Mr Fairlie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank Ross Greer for once again bringing this issue to the attention of the Parliament. As the MSP that is lucky enough to have luck leaving on my doorstep, I know only too well the strength of feeling that myself and many of my constituents hold towards these iconic beauty spots. There, my work involves supporting those attempting to deliver long-term solutions to the local community so that they can continue to enjoy the lock and see the ecology restored. Today's topic ever concentrates on Loch Lomond, one of Scotland's two national parks, a place that has an emotional meaning for generations of Scots and visitors alike to our country, and where it's Bonnie, Bonnie banks, mark it as a place of worldwide wonder. It's 20 years since Scotland's first national parks in Loch Lomond in the Trossachs and the Cairngombs were established. In that time, the parks have responsibly faced up to diversity by biodiversity and climate crisis issues, managing facilities for visitors, promoting responsible access to the land, and assisting in developing sustainable communities. It's clear to me that those who are entrusted with protecting our national treasures know what they're doing. All those who have been to Loch Lomond and witnessed its charms could easily understand why a big business or developer would want to take advantage of the site and try to capitalise on the popularity of this national treasure that welcomes millions of visitors each year. It's right that we sit in this Parliament to debate this topic, given that it is a site of huge significance to so many people. Ultimately, we are also correct to accept that this is a decision that is best taken locally by those whose lives will be impacted more than Government ministers or MSPs who would visit the Loch and its surrounding beauty spots. The decision that will be taken by the park authority board includes elective community representatives and local community councillors, and it is those people that we should trust to fully understand and appreciate the issue. In order to maintain its prestige, the national park does impressive work each year, working closely with communities, land managers, local businesses and the third sector, and individuals who are aiming to support biodiversity and improve the health and well-being of the local community. The current Lomond banks plan is in the planning process and in full agreement with the idea that park authority closely assesses whether or not this development has an impact on the environment and the local community. Furthermore, those who are making the decision will consider if it complies with the Scottish planning policy of the national planning framework that Scotland adopted in February and has become the statutory part of the national park development plan. MPF4 will guide Scotland's net zero spatial planning journey over the next decade with the aim of delivering sustainable, livable and productive places. It is clear that if the proposals are to be successful, their application meets the spirit of MPF4 and meets the needs of the national park and its local communities. The previous Flamingo land application was withdrawn as a result of dialogue between the developer, the park authority and the local community in Baloch and south of the Loch Lomond. I am hopeful that today's discussion during this debate in the Scottish Parliament reassures the public and all those with an interest or a bond to the park that any development will only occur after serious consideration by the rightful decision makers on the grounds that it strictly complies with MPF4 and the park authority's serious considerations. I, for one, will follow this project with interest. As a west of Scotland MSP, I am honoured to have part of the Loch Lomond and the Trusach national park in my region. Last year, the member Ross Greer secured debating time to explore the live planning application of Loch Lomond Bank's development. I felt, then, that it was important to remain neutral. Now, Presiding Officer, the member brings this issue to the Parliament yet again, where the planning application is still alive. As such, I would hope that all contributions to this debate are respectful of the fact that due process is still to be played out. When I spoke in last year's debate on Lomond Banks, I made the point that these developments can often have a positive outcome for the local community, but only when the local community is allowed their full say on the project. With that in mind, I am pleased to see that the Lomond Banks team has been working constructively to address the concerns of residents. That work is reflected clearly in the revised application that was recently submitted to the Loch Lomond and the Trusach national park. Important revisions include those relating to the environment and local infrastructure that Ross Greer draws attention to in today's motion. In my last contribution, I also outlined concerns about anti-social behaviour and littering. I welcome that in their legally binding Lomond promise document, the developers have committed to deploying monitoring systems and employing suitably qualified staff to manage any anti-social behaviour within the development and its immediate surroundings. However, littering and waste management is one aspect of which further clarity would be welcomed. Another outstanding issue is that of the natural environment. I welcome the significant reductions in accommodation density in the revised plans, as well as the moves to ensure that there is no reduction in their input to biodiversity value. However, as the Woodlands Trust has highlighted, certain areas of ancient woodland remain at risk even under the revised plans. I also welcome the promises to work with local businesses and community councils to ensure the local community sees the potential economic and social benefits of this project. The social value portal proposed by Lomond banks would be a key part of measuring any potential benefits. Despite further assurances from Lomond banks, concerns around local infrastructure such as roads remain a pressing issue for residents. The staggered check-in and checkout times that Lomond banks have proposed as a solution to that promising, but we would not know how effective that system is until the development has gone ahead. As I remarked last time, I am not opposed to developments such as this by default, but it is vital that the concerns of communities are fully heard. As such efforts to liaison with stakeholders are welcomed, they cannot be one of actions. This will have to be a continued process of going back and forth to create a balance, and further concessions will likely have to be made. Although there is still much work to be done, I remain hopeful that, through constructive engagement system, it can be developed whereby it complements the local area rather than detract from it. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me start by congratulating Ross Greer for securing this debate as it gives me the opportunity to speak about the constituency that I am very proud to represent. Lomond is a most beautiful place, with some of the most breathtaking views in all of Scotland. It is because it is so special to my local community and to visitors from across Scotland, the UK and the world, any development must be carefully considered and properly scrutinised. Members will be aware that Lomond banks, otherwise known as Flamingoland, want to develop a tourism project at Loch Lomond. It is going to be a multi-site development, centred at West Riverside in Baloch, which, incidentally, is land owned by Scottish Enterprise, so the Government has an interest, but that development will include self-catering lodges that tells another accommodation. The first planning application, as Ross Greer outlined, was withdrawn. The second application, recently revised again, has taken on board some of the feedback that is given very clearly by the local community. Let me reflect on some of that feedback. I conducted a survey of Baloch and, indeed, the surrounding area. There was a 12 per cent return rate of several thousand survey forms issued, and of that number, 31 per cent were in favour, 68 per cent were against, and in 1 per cent it was unclear whether they were in favour or not. There was a further survey conducted by the local community council, where the number against was even greater than the ones that I had identified. However, of most interest to me, when you analysed the responses, was that whether you agreed or disagreed with the development, people in my area had similar concerns and made similar observations. People did not want development at Drumkin and Woods. The briefing from the Woodland Trust, which has already been quoted, notes that the resubmitted documents are an improvement in terms of impact on ancient woodland, but, as Ross Greer pointed out, concerns remain and need to be addressed. People in my community wanted to be sure that the impact on the economy would be a positive one. Good jobs paid at least the Scottish living wage, not on casual contracts, and local businesses should benefit as part of the supply chain. There has been positive work by Lohman Banks to address this, and I recognise the pledges that they have made to the local community. I would expect nothing less. However, my local community also wanted better infrastructure, and the roads dealt with it. However, I have to say on this point that there has been little movement. In the summer, at any point when the sun comes out, there is regularly gridlock on the A82 at Stonymoreland roundabout. As people head to Loch Lomond, that becomes worse when you get past the roundabout. Traffic on the A811 is also affected. It does not take much traffic for the road to grind to a halt. Adding extra vehicle movements and adding extra visitors with the development of this size will have an impact. The developers say that there is minimal impact. They say that they will encourage active travel, and they will provide incentives for using local rail services. All that sounds really good. If I am going on a self-catering holiday, I am taking my car, filled with what I need for the week or the weekend. The reality is that, when you get on-site, that might be helpful, but the movements of people coming on and off-site will have an impact. Local knowledge matters at times like this, so people need to be clear about that. For the avoidance of doubt, let me be very clear. If the application is to pass the routes infrastructure needs to be addressed, or frankly, the application should not proceed, that is an absolute red line for me because the local community has borne enough with the existing route infrastructure. Finally, given the controversy generated by the application, that is likely to end up with ministers, whatever the decision of the national park. I am conscious that Lorna Slater is the minister with responsibility for national parks, but I believe that that would be a matter for the planning minister. Can the minister confirm that my understanding is correct? Although I am not even sure if the bute house agreement will still be in place by then, who knows? However, what is clear is that local people cannot be expected to just put up with more traffic on already difficult roads. The developer needs to work with Transport Scotland and Western Barcher Council to stop further traffic misery being piled on to local people, or the application should not succeed. Thank you very much, Ms Bailey. I now call on the minister to wind up the debate, minister, for around seven minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am happy to have the opportunity to close the debate on Ross Greer's motion. I thank him for bringing the motion and to all the members who have taken the opportunity to make their very valid points on the record. It will, of course, be a bit difficult for me to comment much further, as members will recognise, than the Minister for Parliamentary Business did last time this subject was debated in June. As I understand it, the planning application for Lomond Banks is still live, and, quite rightly, as required by the Scottish Ministerial Code, ministers are restricted from commenting publicly when live planning applications are doing so could potentially prejudice the final decision of, therefore, unfortunately, we are unable to take interventions. 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 Trussex national park authority. Planning decisions within the national park are required to have regard to the national park plan and to be in accordance with the national planning framework for, along with Loch Lomond and the Trussex national park's local development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Recognising and respecting the important role of the planning authorities in making decisions on future development in their area means that it is rare for ministers to intervene in a live planning application, and they will do so only where matters of national interest are at stake. To confirm Jackie Baillie's point, I understand that the planning minister would be the relevant minister in where that to happen. However, what I would like to acknowledge is the interest that members have in the project and in the wider running of our national parks. The Scottish Government is also a strong supporter of the work of our national parks in conserving and protecting Scotland's nature and biodiversity to make the parks a great place to visit, live and work. Both Loch Lomond and the Trussex national park and Cairngorm national park continue to go from strength to strength in preserving Scotland's unique nature, while also supporting local communities, businesses and visitors. Recognising the value that they bring and the potential that they have in helping to address the twin climate and biodiversity crisis that Scotland faces, the Scottish Government has committed to the designation of a new national park by the end of this parliamentary session. I am sure that members are aware that our national parks have a number of duties and driving objectives, including supporting their tourism economy, but the underpinning name of the national parks, which takes precedence in any decision-making, is to conserve and enhance Scotland's natural and cultural heritage. I am confident then that the park will apply the same in its assessment of the Lomond banks project. It is one of the reasons that these decisions can take so long, because there is a rigorous process of scrutiny, and the process is transparent with information on the application that is published on the park's website. The opportunity is there for anyone to submit formal comments on the application. Ultimately, any decisions made are transparent and will be made in line with the park's four aims, to conserve and enhance natural cultural heritage, to promote the sustainable use of natural resources in the area, to promote understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the area to the public, and to promote sustainable social and economic development of the communities of the area. As I have said, the first of those will be considered above all others where there are potential conflicts. In listening to the views that are expressed today, I can tell that there is a lot of passion around the project. The park has indicated that updated information has been received at the request of the authority, and there is currently an opportunity for further comment. The most appropriate and impactful way that members can make their views known on the subject would be to feed into the process formally by submitting formal comments directly to the Loch Lomond and Trossach national park authority. That can be done through the official planning portal on their websites by emailing them directly or by sending a written letter to their headquarters as the process is transparent correspondence is published alongside the application on the portal. I take on board the comment made by Ross Greer with regard to contacting board members. I can inform him that board members can be contacted through the board's email address. In my understanding, on the other point that you raised, is that board members are not subject to the same provisions in the local government act in that regard with regard to email addresses. Comments in the form of formal representations can be submitted until 30 March, in which public comments can continue to be submitted after that date until a short time before the park authorities' members meet to determine the application that is advisable to ensure feedback is submitted within the statutory timeframe. That will help to ensure that the park authority is able to consider all information and representations as quickly as possible and in advance of the park authorities' meeting to determine the application. I thank members once again for their thoughts on the project and for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Government. Thank you very much, minister. That concludes the debate and I close this meeting of Parliament.