YOUR letters to the Advertiser this week include views on Waitrose's policy on children in its Helensburgh store, grant funding from Argyll and Bute Council, the controversial 'Lomond Banks' development in Balloch, drone activity around HM Naval Base Clyde, and more.

To add your views to the mix on any local issue, simply email your thoughts to or via the

Send Us Your News

section of this website, with your name and address, and 'Letter' in the subject line of your message.

Please try and keep your thoughts as brief and to-the-point as you can. We also require a daytime contact phone number in case we need to check any details at short notice, though this will not be published.

Happy writing!

* * * * * * * *

Anyone who has been in Waitrose around lunchtime and seen hordes of schoolchildren descending on the store will applaud Waitrose’s attempt to limit the number of schoolchildren in the store to 30 at one time (

Supermarket slammed over child limit policy

, Advertiser, May 2).

What a pathetic rant from the anonymous ‘mum of two’ who takes offence that her children might have to wait in an orderly queue outside the store.

Such a lesson in disciplined, orderly conduct will stand them in good stead as they approach adulthood.

I am sure that the silent majority of Waitrose customers, and indeed sensible parents, support this trial, and Waitrose should not be put off by a headline grabbing ‘mum of two’.

Archie Westwood, Cardross

* * * * * * * *

READ MORE: Advertiser Letters, May 2

* * * * * * * *

I REFER to the article regarding the disappointment of the Helensburgh Seafront Development Project (HSDP) at not being successful in being granted funding from Argyll and Bute’s Supporting Communities Fund this year (

Helensburgh pier grant bid rejected by councillors

, Advertiser, May 2).

On what criteria does Councillor Freeman base his suggestion that Helensburgh Savoy Musical Theatre Group are less deserving recipients than the HSDP?

His statement that “a lot of the people [in HSDP] are volunteers” is not a particularly good argument for his case, as Savoy members are also volunteers.

Like every group that applied, Helensburgh Savoy had to complete a very comprehensive application process, with no guarantee of success.

Sadly, not every group can be funded every year, and we have also had our disappointments in the past; but if we had not been successful in achieving a grant this year, we would certainly not have gone to the council to ask for a recount.

It is a great pity that, in a small area, if the various groups cannot be more supportive of one another in their aim to provide for the community.

As an active supporter of the HSDP I hope that their feasibility study will be possible in the near future.

Pauline Forrest (Secretary, Helensburgh Savoy Musical Theatre Group)

* * * * * * * *

READ MORE: Advertiser Letters, April 25

* * * * * * * *

Media coverage of drone activity at Gatwick and Heathrow airports has highlighted the potential impact of drones on busy operational facilities.

Accordingly, HM Naval Base Clyde, the Dockyard Port of Gareloch and Loch Long, as well as other military lands in the local area, are protected by Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) no-fly zones.

Consequently, it is an offence to fly a drone in these areas without prior authorisation from the CAA.

Anyone considering operating a drone for work or leisure, should ensure they do so responsibly and in compliance with CAA regulations.

The CAA sponsored website,

, provides suitable information for non-commercial users, and the mobile app Drone Assist (

), sponsored by the CAA, provides up to date advice of no-fly areas.

While this guidance is specifically for drone users, I would also encourage those in the Helensburgh and Lomond area to help identify instances of drone use close to either the Naval Base or RNAD Coulport by calling the Ministry of Defence Police on 01436 655765.

Commodore Donald Doull (Commander, HM Naval Base Clyde)

* * * * * * * *

READ MORE: Advertiser Letters, April 18

* * * * * * * *

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse for Flamingo Land’s hated application to build a development on the shores of Loch Lomond (

MSP delivers record number of objections to Loch Lomond plans

, Advertiser, May 1), it now transpires that back in 2014 and 2015, when their application was in the pipeline, they made several generous donations to the Conservative Party!

The total donations came to more than £83,000. Someone really, really wants a slice of the Loch Lomond action.

I note further that, following the enormous opposition to the proposed development (the petition Help Save Loch Lomond now has more than 51,000 signatures online), the business heid yins at Flamingo Land are trying to rebrand the project as ‘Lomond Banks’.

Laughing all the way to the bank, maybe. Not if the local people have anything to do with it, they won’t!

Jonathan Hargreaves, Helensburgh

* * * * * * * *

READ MORE: Advertiser Letters, April 11

* * * * * * * *

With reference to the changed planning application for the Flamingo Land, or should we now say, Lomond Banks, development (

Name change for Loch Lomond development as first images are released

, April 23), I submitted an objection in principle to this application last year.

Before I submitted my objection, I took the trouble to Google the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority’s stated “Vision and Aims” document.

I based my objection on the grounds that the proposed development would be an infringement of the stated vision and four aims.

My objection was as follows.

The first aim, “to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area”, is of paramount importance, and the proposed development is completely contrary to this aim. A large part of the natural environment would necessarily be destroyed by building, the loss of woodland, and the use of the proposed facilities.

The second aim, “to promote the sustainable use of the natural resources of the area”, is equally important. Sustainability implies no adverse effects by a present development on future generations. The proposed development is completely contrary to this aim.

Greatly increased road traffic can be assumed, increasing carbon emissions, and thus contributing to climate change. Thus, the development will adversely affect future generations and cannot be regarded as sustainable in the accepted definition.

The third aim, “to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public”, seems benign enough. However, the inclusion of a large number of holiday residential units and various mechanical attractions, will inevitably detract from the present peace and quiet of the area, and contribute to increased noise, litter, and possibly other anti-social behaviour.

The quality of life of at least some of the existing residents will be adversely affected.

The fourth aim, “To promote sustainable social and economic development of the area’s communities”, again seems innocuous. However, even if a living wage is paid to employees, much of the work will inevitably be seasonal; Balloch is already thriving, socially and economically.

My objection was duly acknowledged, and can be seen on the relevant LLNP web-site.

While it is accepted that many people do approve of these plans, it is already apparent that many people in the local community and elsewhere (throughout the wider world), are opposed to the development, both in its original, and now altered, form.

Rose Harvie, Dumbarton

* * * * * * * *

Kilcreggan Primary School PTA would like to thank the Helensburgh Co-op and the very generous people of Helensburgh.

We did a bag pack on Saturday, May 4 to raise funds towards putting gym equipment for the children into the playground.

We truly were delighted and astounded at people’s generosity and raised £394 in a very short time. Many thanks to everyone who donated and were involved.

Catriona Bray, Kilcreggan Primary PTA

* * * * * * * *

I AM struck by the call from Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, that the next UK prime minister should continue to refuse a referendum on Scottish independence.

I find this curious as in July 2016 Ruth Davidson commented that it would “not be wise” for the next prime minister to block a request by Nicola Sturgeon for a second independence referendum.

At the time she noted that questions over trading markets, currency and borders were now “utterly different” following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.

In fact, sources close to the Scottish Tory leader argued that denying a second independence referendum would provoke a massive public backlash in Scotland that could further drive up support for independence.

With public support for independence and another referendum rising, One could argue that the response from the Ruth Davidson of 2016 is more credible than the Ruth Davidson of today.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh

* * * * * * * *

An Audit Scotland report found the SNP have spent £7.3 million this year handing powers back to the UK Government.

Audit Scotland stated that “he Scottish Government found delivery on its initial commitments harder than expected”, adding that the current systems in place “will not be enough to support the delivery of the second wave” of powers.

They added: “The Scottish Government does not have a clear understanding of the key things needed to deliver all remaining benefits in the way it intends.”

The SNP has spent years complaining about the UK Government’s approach to benefits, but now hands them back powers.

If they can’t even sort this out, how on earth do they propose to run an independent country?

This is what happens when the SNP forget the day job.

Cllr Alastair Redman (Conservative, Kintyre and the Islands)