Scots Gov official who approved Flamingo Land will lead the review into decision
A review of the Scottish Government's widely criticised move to approve Flamingo Land's Loch Lomond resort will be led by the same official who gave it the green light.
The Sunday Mail has learned Scottish Government Reporter David Buylla – who gave the controversial £43.5million project in Balloch planning permission – will now advise SNP ministers who have been forced to call in the decision for reappraisal.
Furious activists say it showed the process was a 'sham'.
The government was forced to U-turn on the initial backing for the lochside resort by Buylla – a top civil servant – amid local opposition and the threat of a parliamentary defeat.
Community councillor Lynne Somerville said: 'It beggars belief they're allowing the same man that caused this outrage in the first place to write this new report. There's a complete conflict of interest and I think that really needs to be recognised by the Scottish Government.'
Board members of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park are also opposed to the development.
Dubbed ' Lomond Banks', the resort by Yorkshire theme park operator Flamingo Land would see a waterpark, a monorail, hotels, restaurants, a brewery and 104 woodland chalets built.
After 50,000 people signed a petition urging ministers to reconsider the decision, Public Finance Minister Ivan McKee 'called in' the appeal last month, meaning ministers will consider it directly.
But we can reveal the same Reporter, Buylla, is tasked with writing a new report including recommendations to inform McKee's decision.
Somerville said: 'Why does Ivan McKee or anyone else think it's appropriate the same man is being asked to produce the report that will influence, guide and steer the outcome?
"It's like they are trying to hide behind him and he is being used as the proverbial scapegoat. It does not paint the Scottish Government in a good light.'
Scottish Government Reporters are civil servants within the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) who decide on planning appeals.
Buylla is one of five principal reporters at the DPEA, which also has a chief reporter and three assistant chief reporters.
Alannah Maurer, campaigner with the Save Loch Lomond campaign, said: 'You'd assume someone else would have been assigned. You have to consider professional integrity because how does he say anything other than what he previously said?
'It's absolutely clear there is no democracy, particularly where planning is concerned. The developer can appeal but the public has no right of appeal.
'Our best hope is that ministers will see sense, pay attention to the public – but it's clear public opinion counts for nothing.'
Buylla's continued involvement in the appeal was first revealed by environmental campaigner and blogger Nick Kempe, who branded Scotland's planning system a 'farce'.
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like.
To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
He wrote last week: "It appears the DPEA is still very much in charge.
'Without any instructions/steer from Mr McKee about what he wishes Mr Buylla to reconsider, it is difficult to see why he would change anything substantial in his report.'
Tory West Scotland MSP Pam Gosal said: 'Given the controversy surrounding the SNP's handling of this issue, serious questions must be answered about the appropriateness of this latest appointment.
'Instead of continually forcing solutions and railroading their plans through parliament, SNP ministers should instead heed the widespread concerns of locals who firmly oppose the Flamingo Land proposals at Loch Lomond.'
Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer commented: 'Ministers cannot hide behind officials when the gateway to Loch Lomond is at stake. They need to take control of this process themselves.
'For a start, they must do what did not happen at the appeal stage; speak to the community, to myself and others like the Woodland Trust who submitted substantial evidence against Flamingo Land's destructive plans.
'They absolutely must speak to the National Park's own planning experts, whose report advising their board to reject the application was clearly badly misunderstood by Government officials.'The Planning Minister should call a public hearing and come to his own decision based on the evidence. Rehashing the same flawed report from officials and waiting until after next year's election to sign it off would be totally unacceptable."
Last month, developers Lomond Banks criticised the decision to recall the decision to approve and hit out at "hysteria" over the proposals which they say will bring much-needed jobs and investment to the area.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: 'Ministers decided to recall the Lomond Banks appeal as the proposed development raises issues of national significance in view of its potential impact on Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park.
'As this is a live planning appeal it would not be appropriate to comment further.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
11 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why is the SQA so quiet about students cheating with AI?
'We have no further comment to make.' It's a statement that every journalist has received plenty of times. Over the years investigating and reporting on Scottish education, both during and well before my time at The Herald, I've had variations of that statement from all sorts of bodies including councils, regulators, private companies, public organisations, and the Scottish Government. The message between the lines is simple: we're not answering these questions unless you find a way to make us. Sometimes this is what you get in response to follow up questions after receiving an initial response to an enquiry; other times it comes when you try to challenge them for ignoring some or all of an initial query. The latest instance – at least at the time of writing – involves the soon-to-be rebranded SQA, Scotland's only exam board and the body responsible for issuing exam results to students in a couple of weeks. The topic? Students using AI to cheat in their coursework. Read more Lessons to Learn: Here's the background: a teacher and current SQA marker recently approached us with some pretty serious concerns, alleging that they and others had been discouraged from reporting all instances of suspected AI use by students, and suggesting that the issue was effectively being covered up. If true, this would undermine the fairness of this year's National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher results, and raise major questions for SQA leadership. So we approached SQA. We put the accusations to them to give them the opportunity to respond, and also asked for some specific and obviously relevant information: In total, how many scripts were flagged for potential use of AI by markers? (and what is this as a proportion of total scripts) How many of those were investigated and judged to show signs of AI use? What action was taken against those who were found to have cheated using AI? We also asked if the [[SQA]] would commit to an investigation of the claims being made, particularly given previous concerns about the [[SQA]]'s exam marking – remember the months-long Higher History debacle last year, for example? Here's the response we received, attributed to an SQA spokesperson: 'We provide principal assessors with guidance on the use of AI before marker meetings to help them prepare. Markers are told to raise all potential malpractice concerns during marking, including the use of AI, all of which are investigated.' So the exam board is disputing the accusation that markers were told not to report all concerns, but what about that other information? Well, when we asked if they would be responding to our other questions, we were told that they had 'no further comment to make'. So now we have to try to make this publicly-funded body answer these simple questions. One option would be to ask more specific questions, and give more information from markers, but this would risk revealing details of our sources. But teachers tend to be worried about being identified by the SQA and facing punitive actions for raising concerns, and to be honest that's a pretty reasonable concern on their part, so that's not a road we would go down. Which means that we need to use Freedom of Information requests. This – as the [[SQA]] knows – means it will be weeks before we might get the information we're asking for, and that's assuming they manage to answer on time (which isn't even remotely guaranteed) and don't try to withhold material using some of the clauses in FOI law. Crucially, the information is very unlikely to have been made available when exam results are released at the start of August. All of which is ironic, because just a couple of weeks ago the SQA was telling the press that the appointment of their new Chief Executive, Nick Page, 'marks the start of a new era of collaboration, transparency, and opportunity'. We have now submitted several FOI requests to the SQA, asking for the information they have so far refused to provide, as well as other material related to potential cheating through AI use. We will, as ever, let you know what we find, but it might be a while. We've also asked Mr Page to sit down for an interview with us, which would give him the chance to explain how he is going to deliver on promises of transparency and openness from an organisation that has historically pursued the opposite approach. We hope to bring you that soon as well.
The Herald Scotland
12 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Let trans women into women's shelters, say SNP ministers
But the suggestion drew strong criticism from campaigners, who said the Scottish Government was misrepresenting the law. 'Services are either single-sex or open to everyone, and there are no circumstances where it is legally possible to provide a service for 'biological women and trans women',' Trina Budge of For Women Scotland told The Herald. READ MORE Three months ago, the UK's highest court ruled that 'women' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 referred to biological sex rather than gender identity. The court case was brought by FWS after they challenged the Scottish Government's guidance on the definition of 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the commission issued draft guidance on a range of topics, including how single-sex services can be lawfully provided, when trans people can be excluded, and when organisations might request a birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate. The draft said any service offered to 'women and trans women' is not a single-sex service under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful discrimination against those of the opposite sex. The EHRC later opened a consultation on the draft to help formulate an updated Code of Practice. The commission said it received more than 50,000 responses. Final guidance had been expected before Parliament broke for summer earlier this week, but the EHRC said last week it would be published later in the year. For Women Scotland won the Supreme Court in April (Image: PA) The Scottish Government quietly published its response to the consultation on Friday afternoon. Ministers raised concerns that the commission's draft code placed too much emphasis on when trans people can be excluded from services, and not enough on how services can remain inclusive within the law. 'We consider that it would be helpful to provide illustrative examples within the Code of Practice to provide guidance on how a service provider may lawfully implement an inclusive approach,' the Government said. 'This would be particularly helpful in situations where a service provider has identified a need that exists for both biological women and trans women, for example in relation to those who have experienced domestic abuse, homelessness or trafficking. 'Without this clarity, providers may simply stop offering any services to trans people due to concerns about legal risk.' They also warned that, following the judgment, some trans people had chosen to 'remove themselves from public life' out of fear of being turned away from services. In its submission, the Scottish Government also said it was also concerned about what it described as 'social policing' of someone's sex. 'We note that the impact of the guidance may lead to situations where some members of the public will take it upon themselves to judge appearances and assume someone's sex based on their perception of that person's sex or gender identity. 'This sense of distrust in others and social policing of bodies is detrimental not only for trans and non-binary people, but for those who are born male or female who may not fit into society's current expectations of what a man or woman looks like, which change over time, and in different contexts and places.' The response also called for advice on how to apply the updated definition of legal sex to workplace facilities, and for consideration of the impact of the code on intersex people. Ms Budge said: 'The Scottish Government still woefully misunderstands the Supreme Court judgment on how the Equality Act works. "Services are either single-sex or open to everyone, and there are no circumstances where it is legally possible to provide a service for 'biological women and trans women'. 'We note that in pushing for this option, the Government has dropped its previous legal argument that a man needs a GRC to access a women's service and reverted to, once again, looking for ways to include men in women's services on a self-ID basis. 'Women who have suffered domestic abuse or trafficking do not wish to be put in sleeping accommodation with males for very good reasons of privacy and safety, and it is beyond our understanding why the Government keeps trying to insist otherwise." Lucy Hunter Blackburn from the MBM policy collective said: 'The response suggests that the Scottish Government has learnt little from the past few years. "It remains fundamentally unsympathetic to the rights and needs of women as a sex, and strongly wedded to defining 'women' as a group that must include some men. 'As a result, it appears to misunderstand both the judgment and the role of the EHRC. It still seems to believe, wrongly, that managing single-sex services and spaces must involve 'balancing' the rights of women against those of a sub-set of men. 'It is resisting clarity in favour of complication, and in doing so providing poor leadership to all Scottish public bodies who now just need to make the law work on the ground.'
The Herald Scotland
14 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Donald Trump vs the Scottish Government: A brief history
The wind farm feud One of Trump's most bitter fights with the [[Scottish Government]] centred on an offshore wind farm proposed near his Aberdeenshire resort. In 2013, he launched a legal battle against plans for 11 turbines, arguing they would ruin the view from his golf course. He then lost a legal challenge over the planned offshore wind farm when it was rejected by the UK Supreme Court. After years of litigation, Trump finally lost his battle against wind turbines in 2019 and was ordered to pay the Scottish Government's legal costs, though the exact sum was never disclosed. Read more: What happened on President Trump's previous Scotland visits? Trump's opposition to wind energy is well-documented. In 2016, he reportedly urged Nigel Farage to campaign against Scottish wind farms, calling them "monstrous," "ugly," and "dangerous'. He even claimed they would "bankrupt Scotland" and destroy tourism. Trump's lobbying against the wind farm included a series of bizarre letters to then-First Minister Alex Salmond, released to the public in 2016. In one, Trump claimed he was trying to "save Scotland". In another, he warned that Salmond would be remembered as "Mad Alex" and that he would fail in the independence referendum if the wind farm project proceeded. Trump alleged that Salmond and former First Minister Jack McConnell had verbally assured him no wind farm would be built near his resort. Donald Trump with former first minister Jack McConnell (Image: PA) "They wanted my money," Trump said. "I was lured into buying the site... then they announced the plan." When Salmond initially supported Trump's golf resort plans, the future president sang a different tune, hailing him as a "great man". Neil Hobday, the project director for Trump's Aberdeen course and who helped broker the controversial deal for the site, claimed the Scottish Government and the country were 'hoodwinked' by Trump's promise of a £1 billion project. Read more: What does Donald Trump own in Scotland? 'He was willing to fight the environmental battle and create this impression that this was a $1bn project and Scotland absolutely needed it. But I think he never really had the money or the intention of finishing it,' Hobday said. Tensions were not relieved from the windfarm debacle whatsoever once Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister, when she stripped Trump of his honorary business ambassador title in 2016 and has directed barbs towards the President ever since. When Sturgeon resigned in 2023, Trump addressed her back, stating 'good riddance' to the 'failed woke extremist'. Environmental damage and stripped protections Trump's [[Aberdeen]]shire golf resort was built on a protected dune system at Menie Estate, a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Environmentalists warned that construction would destroy rare habitats and were proven right. By July 2018, the Scottish Natural Heritage agency admitted that the dunes had been "partially destroyed" by construction and use of the course. By 2020, the Scottish Government officially removed the site's protected status, stating the damage meant the dunes "no longer merited special protection". Read more: Why is Donald Trump visiting Scotland – and where is he going? The government acknowledged that Trump International had taken some conservation measures but concluded that "they no longer have sufficient scientific interest to merit special protection". The unexplained wealth order controversy In 2021, a U.S.-based activist group sought a judicial review after the Scottish Government refused to investigate how Trump financed his golf courses in Scotland. The campaigners pushed for an Unexplained Wealth Order into Trump, a legal tool used to scrutinise suspiciously large cash purchases and recover assets, often dubbed a "McMafia order". The effort followed a February 2021 vote in the Scottish Parliament, where lawmakers rejected a similar motion. Despite the petition, the highest civil court dismissed the case. The financing behind Trump's golf courses is an issue that is raised every time the President visits. Last visit, Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur remarked that Trump was playing 'the most expensive rounds of golf in history'.
