RENEWED questions over the fate of the Loch Lomond wallabies are being raised following the signing of a legal agreement for an island bought by broadcaster Kirsty Young and her husband Nick Jones.
Fears over the future of the resident wallabies have grown since the couple bought the uninhabited Inchconnachan island on Loch Lomond in 2020 for £1.6 million.
Young and Jones, founder of private member club chain Soho House, then applied for planning permission to build a luxury lodge on the island but concerns over the fate of the wallabies led to a petition to save them signed by more than 100,000 people.
Believed to have been introduced to the 103-acre island after the Second World War by the Colquhoun family, who owned the island from the 14th century, the wallabies were at one point thought to number around 60.
However, the last annual drone survey by the Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) spotted just eight of the marsupials on the island which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a conservation area.
The authority has now completed a legal agreement over the couple’s management plan for the island, having previously granted permission for the lodge, warden’s accommodation and boatway.
Concerns remain over both the wallabies and ancient woodland on the island with the legally binding agreement criticised for being “as clear as mud”.
A clarifying statement given to the Sunday National by the park authority saying the development had “no implications” for the wallabies has been greeted with scepticism by Nick Kempe of Parkswatch Scotland.
The LLTNPA spokesperson said: “References to the removal of non-native and exotic species are related to plant species such as Rhododendron ponticum and non-native trees, in order to expand on the Atlantic oak woodland habitat on the island.”
However, Kempe said: “This is clearly not true as there are references in the invasive species section of the plan to the removal of grey squirrel and this section also includes the wallabies – without saying what will happen to them.
“It’s incomprehensible why the management plan does not clearly state what is proposed for the wallabies. It’s a legally binding agreement that is as clear as mud and just full of management speak.”
Kempe added: “The plan clearly states that the grey squirrels will be removed but does not say what will happen to the wallabies.”
Kempe said he wasn’t aware of any evidence that the wallabies were having an impact on the flora of Inchconnachan, especially given their small size and low number.
“In terms of the impact that herbivores have on woodland they are hardly an issue,” he said. “There is a strong case to be made for removal of all non-native species from parts of Scotland, including areas designated for conservation, but if that is what LLTNPA and NatureScot want, then they should say so and – given public affection for the wallabies – develop proposals to move them from the island.”
Young and Jones have previously stated that they were considering removing the wallabies from the island but Kempe said there was also a case for tolerating the marsupials’ presence on the island as part of the local cultural heritage as long as their population remained within certain limits.
“In addition, from an animal welfare perspective, an island is arguably a far better place for them and other wildlife than a fenced enclosure elsewhere,” he said.
“This failure to say what it is proposed to do about the wallabies on the island is in my view completely unacceptable. That, however, is not the fault of Mr and Mrs Jones but a consequence of the LLTNPA and NatureScot not being prepared to engage the public about their future or reveal their plans.”
Kempe also pointed out that there has been no consultation about the plans to remove beech trees from Inchconnachan despite NatureScot publicly apologising for its failure to consult on the poisoning of the beech trees on neighbouring Inchtavannach in 2019.
He said it was arguable whether beech was a non-native species to Scotland.
The Woodland Trust Scotland told the Sunday National that the decision by the park authority to give the go-ahead to the development of the island was “disappointing”.
Woodland Trust Scotland spokesperson George Anderson said: “This decision would be disappointing regardless of location but is especially troubling in a national park.
“The concerns we raised in our initial objection have not been addressed. Furthermore, while the loss of the ancient woodland will be immediate and certain, the outcome of the promised good future management is not at all certain.
“Ancient woodland is irreplaceable and we don’t have very much left. Creating new woodland nearby does not make up for the loss of ancient woodland where the trees, soils and wider species have developed together over centuries.
“We feel NPF4 Policy 6 makes clear the Scottish Government’s consideration of ancient woodland in this way: ‘Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition’.”
Claire Chapman, chair of the planning and access committee at LLTNPA, said: “This application was approved by the committee following careful consideration of the planning assessment and detailed discussion. We are confident that it will deliver benefits for the island, both in terms of biodiversity and visitor management.
“The committee recognised that Inchconnachan is subject to special designations for its scenic and habitat/species qualities and as such, careful consideration was given to the impact this development would have on the island.
“It was concluded that the development would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the protected sites.
“The Island Management Plan – a condition attached to this planning permission – will contribute to enhancing biodiversity on the island and will support continued access and recreation for visitors.
“It sets out conservation and visitor management measures to benefit the whole island, including promotion of native plant species and woodland diversity, restoration of wetlands and a full-time warden on the island.”
A spokesperson for the National Park Authority added: “The planning application approved by the Park Authority is for development on the island and associated management.
“There were no plans included by the applicant for wallabies, which is a matter for them as the landowner.”
The Sunday National approached the landowners’ agent for comment.
