|
Gateway Centre, St Andrews - Background
Info Planning reports more Gateway Info back to Gateway News FIFE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO 14e 08-98-0042D: ERECT MUSEUM, EXHIBITION/CONFERENCE CLUB FACILITIES, RETAIL, CAR PARK ETC - NORTH HAUGH, ST ANDREWS: ST ANDREWS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED. 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 To advise Members on the details of the above application and to make a recommendation thereon. 1.2 This report was the subject of a Departure Hearing of this Committee on 17 December 1998 and the Minute of that meeting appears on the agenda. All representations are available for inspection in the Members’ Lounge. This current report sets out the background, policies issues, a full analysis of the proposal, all further relevant information make known by the objectors and applicants at the Hearing and includes a recommendation for the consideration of the Committee. 2.0 APPLICATION SITE AND APPLICATION DETAILS 2.1 The application site is located to the north western side of St Andrews, to the south side of the A91, on the main approach into the town. The site forms part of the open grassed area of the North Haugh of the University. To the north-east of the application site is the roundabout from which all vehicular access to the North Haugh and the Petheram Bridge car park is obtained. To the north, off the same roundabout, is the access road which serves the Old Course Hotel and Madras Playing Fields. 2.2 To the west of the site is a further grassed open area whilst beyond to the south is the recently extended University bio-molecular building. To the east is the Petheram Bridge car park with the former railway embankment beyond. 2.3 Whilst the settlement boundary for St Andrews takes in land significantly further to the west of the application site, nevertheless visually the roundabout is very much viewed as a ‘gateway’ into St Andrews, accentuated by the presence of the former railway bridge abutments. The site lies outwith the St Andrews and Hepburn Gardens Conservation Areas the nearest boundaries of which are at Kennedy Gardens and the former railway embankment at Petheram Bridge. 2.4 It is proposed to construct a single building extending to four levels with its plan area being largely circular set against a triangular form culminating in a circular shallow roof with a raised central section feature. The lower ground floor would be set into the ground, in part, with the ground floor being entered slightly above existing ground floor level. The overall height of the building was originally proposed at 18.3 metres with a maximum width of 51.5m. The amended plans now show the height as being 1 7.3m 2.5 In terms of external finishing materials, the predominant wall finish would be natural stone with areas of glazing. The roof, together with external panelling would be constructed of aluminium. 2.6 Surrounding the building, and as part of an integrated layout, would be a circular water feature (moat), and external terracing comprising both grass area and hard terracing allowing a ‘break-out’ of the ground floor uses, in particular the café restaurant. 2.7 Centrally within the site is a group of trees which forms part of the landscaping to the North Haugh although these are fairly immature and could easily be replaced. Some other trees would be lost but equally tree planting is proposed around the entire building. 2.8 The nature of the uses and the relationship between them can be summarised as follows:- Lower Ground Floor Museum and Exhibition - The St Andrews Story (600 years) -
Full Public Access - Entry Fee Applicable. Ground Floor University Welcome Reception and Orientation - Full Public
Access - Entry Free of Charge. First Floor Leisure Facilities/Health and Fitness Club - Full Public Access - Entry Fee Applicable. Second Floor Full Public Access Home of Golf Lounge A more detailed description of the inter-relationships between the building and its constituent uses has been provided by the applicants and is included as an appendix to this report. 2.9 Vehicular access to the development would be taken off the internal access road which currently serves University of St Andrews buildings at the North Haugh with the parking provision being to the south side of the proposed building. To the east side it is proposed to include lay-bys to both sides of the road, leading from the roundabout to facilitate ‘park and ride’ provision from the car parks into St Andrews. There would also be pedestrian crossings at this point. 2.10 Although not specifically included as a detailed part of the proposals a notional position for a site for an orientation centre has been identified at the north-west corner of Petheram Bridge car park. 2.11 The siting of the building has also been changed as part of the amended plans. Its position has been shifted approximately 15 metres from the original position, due south towards the University of St Andrews Physics Department (bimolecular building). 3.0 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 The application was advertised under the Departure to Development Plan procedures and as a ‘Bad Neighbour’ development. A total of 17 objections were originally received against the application including those of the St Andrews Community Council, St Andrews Preservation Trust Ltd and the Scottish Civic Trust whilst a further 5 individual objections were received in response to the amended plans. The specific consultees are referred to under Section 4 of this report. Of the individual objections lodged the main points raised can be summarised as follows: 1. Departure to the Development
Plan. 4.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES 4.1 The St Andrews Preservation Trust Ltd The Trustees have lodged a formal objection primarily on the basis that firstly, the development would be likely to have an adverse effect on or detract from the St Andrews mediaeval skyline and secondly, that a smaller proportion of the floor area relates to academic or research use in connection with the University. The Trustees consider that the proposal would duplicate facilities already existing elsewhere in St Andrews. The Trustees have also objected to the amended plans, not considering the repositioning, reduced height or statement on uses to be conclusive. Concern has also been raised over the roof profile and also the external finishing materials. 4.2 Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council The Community Council has formally objected to the proposals. This is in relation to the principle of the proposed development, being located on University land, the inclusion of significant retail floorspace, impacting on existing retail units, the size of the proposal and its design, safety considerations of a moat feature and impact on the skyline. The Community Council considers that the amended plans do not alleviate any of the objections raised. 4.3 The Scottish Civic Trust The Trust objects to the impact of the proposals on the mediaeval skyline and the quality of the townscape. It also raises objections due to the proximity to the Conservation Area and the precedent for development close to the roadside. The Trust has reiterated its objection in respect of the amended plans. 4.4 Royal Fine Arts Commission for Scotland A presentation of the proposals was made to the Commission at its request, by the applicants prior to the consultation reply being submitted. The Commission has commented that whilst the site is right for a northern ‘gateway’ to St Andrews, it may associate better with The Old Course Hotel and the modern University Campus. The Commission wishes to be assured that the Local Plan policies relating to impact on skyline and University uses have been addressed fully. The provision of ‘park and ride’ and an orientation point are encouraged. Concern is raised over the nature of use of the upper two floors. The Commission considers that the bulk and apparent imposed geometry fail to relate the building to historic St Andrews with its mediaeval scale and spirited skyline. The Commission has stated that its views remain unchanged by the amended plans. 4.5 Transportation Service A full Traffic Impact Statement was considered by the Transportation Service and the consultation response concludes that the TIA fully addresses the relevant issues and is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions, including the amended layout continued in the amended plans. Conditional approval has been recommended subject to satisfactory parking, road access arrangements including access into Petheram Bridge car park, provision for bus ‘park and ride’ system and pedestrian facilities, all of which are included in the amended plans. 4.6 East of Scotland Water ESW has had discussions with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and it has been agreed that discharges from the proposed development can be accepted into public sewerage. No objection is therefore raised to the application. 4.7 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency Agreement reached with ESW. 4.8 Fife Council’s Economic Development Service The proposals would provide an additional indoor attraction and provide a ‘gateway’ orientation facility, fitting in with the St Andrews Tourism Strategy. The University’s Valentines postcard collection could, if used well, provide a visitor attraction sufficient to attract all year round visitors to St Andrews and Fife and encourage longer stays within the town. 5.0 PLANNING CONTEXT 5.1 The application site is located within the settlement boundary defined for St Andrews in the St Andrews Area Local Plan. The relevant development plan policies are listed below. 5.2 Fife Structure Plan Policy ED8: There is a presumption in favour of tourism development projects which will assist the economic development of the Plan area. Proposals are required to enhance the attractiveness of an area for both visitors and residents. 5.3 Policy ED9: The development of the tourist industry will be encouraged and the provision of facilities supported which: I. contribute to lengthening the
tourist season. This policy seeks to develop new areas of tourist interest and to lengthen the season so that visitor pressures may be spread. 5.4 Policy ED1O: Proposals which assist the development of the “Fife Tourist Route” will be supported. The development of heritage interpretation and visitor facilities related to the route have a particular priority. 5.5 Policy ED11: Developments which are considered to have an adverse effect on the existing tourist industry will not be supported. This policy resists developments which could adversely affect Fife’s visitor attractions, particularly in terms of visual or other environmental effects. 5.6 Policy E1OA: To protect and enhance Conservation Areas. 5.7 Policy E1OB: Development will not be permitted which adversely affects an Outstanding Conservation Area. Both policies are aimed primarily at the quality of development within Conservation Areas and the enhancement of Conservation Areas. 5.8 Policy E31: Developments which will have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the strategic road network will not be supported. Decision on applications for development near or adjacent to the strategic road network which could have a detrimental visual impact should take account of this policy. Policies ED10 and ED11 are seen as complementing Policy E31. 5.9 St Andrews Area Local Plan Policy S1: Development proposals will not be acceptable if they are likely to have an adverse effect on or detract from St Andrews’ mediaeval skyline. The supporting text under paragraph 10.1.5. makes specific reference to prominent viewpoints and includes within these that from the A91 (Cupar Road). 5.10 Policy S13: Within the area defined “University” on the Proposals Map, there will be a presumption in favour of development related to the needs of St Andrews University or which can take advantage of the University’s academic, research or physical resources. The area defined for this use in the Local Plan extends to a large area from the A91 in the north to the B939 (Buchanan Gardens) to the south-west. The Local Plan acknowledges that the University is the largest landowner outwith the public sector in the town and the largest employer. The Local Plan therefore supports the combined growth and development of the University to meet its operational needs. 6.0 DEPARTURE HEARING 6.1 The minute of the Departure Hearing is included elsewhere on this agenda. This gives full details of the points raised by the speakers opposed to the development together with those raised by the applicants and the issues can be summarised as follows:- 1. The site lies within an area allocated for University operational needs only. 2. The scale and impact of the proposed building would be excessive. 3. Impact on commercial viability of town centre. 4. The need for museum facilities for the
University and an opportunity for promoting and
marketing 5. Economic factors rather than good design should not dominate the decision making process. 6. Operational needs of the University could be achieved in a more appropriate and dignified manner. 7. Existing roadside tree belt should be extended. 8. The community envisaged teaching and
research accommodation or residencies for the
area 9. Excessive amount of floor area devoted to commercially related uses. 10. Impact against skyline. 11. Lack of relationship to local vernacular in design. 12. Impact on views from strategic road network. 13. Few of the uses proposed necessitate this site/location. 14. The proposed building would dominate the entrance to the town. 15. Many of the proposed uses are already provided close by. 16. Control over extent/nature of retail uses. 17. Importance of providing facilities for University to display collections of international importance. 18. Building would be provided with a carefully landscaped setting. 19. University committed to significant involvement in the uses within the proposed building. 20. Proposals would provide full visitors/coach parking and park and ride facilities. 21. Existing University buildings cannot adequately bring together and display important collections. 22. The development would present an opportunity for the University to display its expertise in the cutting edge of several areas of research and technology. 23. Top floor seen as superfluous to University needs. 24. Potential glare through glazed areas at night. 7.0 PLANNING ISSUES AND ASSESSMENT The principle planning issues arising from the planning policy context and the objections lodged can be summarised as follows:- 1. Visual Impact - scale and massing of the building in relation to the mediaeval skyline of St Andrews as viewed from the A91 approach into the town. 2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Uses - in the context of the site’s position within an area allocated for “University” purposes. 7.1 Visual Impact: The application site is positioned close to the road frontage of the main approach into St Andrews, being the A91. From this approach one is presented with a view of the mediaeval skyline of St Andrews. This is a changing view since the A91 turns markedly to the left having the effect of shifting the mediaeval skyline further to the right of the field of vision as you get closer to the town. This view is also marked by the presence of more contemporary buildings, notably the Old Course Hotel which appears to the left of the mediaeval skyline and the bimolecular building at the University, lying to the right. To the fore of the skyline is a certain amount of tree coverage together with the former railway embankment at Petheram Bridge. There is therefore an important view on this approach and one which Policy Si of the Local Plan (LP) seeks to protect. Similarly Policy E31 of the Structure Plan (SP) seeks to protect views from the strategic road network, of which the A91 forms part. Policy ED11 (SP) has a similar aim, in the context of Fife’s visitor attractions. 7.2 The proposed building through the amended plans now demonstrates a position which would see it viewed in the context of the North Haugh University developments in that it would read as a visual stop, being at the visual edge of the existing buildings. This is, primarily from a view point alongside the A91 which was the subject of a photo-montage submitted by the applicant, adjacent to the playing fields, but before the road turns to the left. At this point the mediaeval skyline is visible at its maximum availability. That is to say that at closer view points intervening features start to more actively compete visually with the mediaeval skyline. Examples of this being more recent buildings in the Conservation Area and indeed the embankment at Petheram Bridge. Taken to its conclusion the diminishing view is obviously closed off when one finally reaches the roundabout adjacent to the former railway abutments. At this point the available views are of a very different type, quality and date. 7.3 The scale and height of the proposed building is such that, inevitably, when one approaches it closely it would appear to dominate structures which lie beyond and/or further away. However, this has also to be viewed in the context of the distance of the building from the road frontage. It would, at its closest point, be 50M from the road edge which would therefore maintain views of the mediaeval skyline from closer view points. 7.4 The Hepburn Gardens Conservation Area extends to the west of the mediaeval skyline and therefore lies to the right of the latter when viewed from this approach into St Andrews. However, existing buildings at the North Haugh impact onto this view and in any event little of the Hepburn Gardens Conservation Area is visible from the A91. 7.5 The proposed building has been designed to act as a visual gateway development into St Andrews. It has been deliberately designed to have an imposing quality since one of its prime aims is to provide a point of orientation and direction of visitors, prior to moving onto the town itself. The design incorporates high quality natural finishing materials intended to reflect qualities of tradition and vernacular. The imposing quality of the design however is also related to its landscaped setting within the North Haugh. Its position and setting are both intended to avoid competing with the backdrop of the town’s skyline. 7.6 There has been criticism of the design approach adopted from both individuals and some consultees. However, the building is intended to be prestigious in terms of its contents, ie internationally renowned collections, cutting edge technology of the University demonstrated within, and therefore the design has evolved to reflect this. 7.7 As agreed at the Departure Hearing the applicants will be erecting scaffolding on the site to demonstrate both the highest point and, the nearest point to the road frontage to enable further visual assessment of the impact of the proposal to be made. 7.8 Appropriateness of the Proposed Uses: The site lies within the area defined ‘University’ in the Local Plan. The intention behind this, emphasised under Policy S13, is to ensure that the growth and development of the University to meet its operational needs is provided for in terms of available and conveniently located land. It is development which can take advantage of the University’s academic research or physical resources or related to the needs of the University. The proposed development incorporates a variety of uses within its four floors. Inherent in this though is the involvement of the University, firstly as site owner but more importantly in its utilisation of accommodation within the building to enhance and develop facilities which are either not currently catered for or are under-utilised. Paramount amongst these are the various internationally important collections held by the University. Currently these have little public access and certainly not the profile they need or deserve. The proposed building would provide the necessary vehicle for this in the lower ground floor area as well as outshoots elsewhere into the building. There is also the potential to develop touring displays with the National Museums of Scotland, as part of its outreach programme. 7.9 The University also has several aspects of its research and development which are at the cutting edge of technology. In the developing academic world it is important for the University to maintain a high profile and certainly its international reputation. Inherent in this is the need to have facilities which give this profile in an accessible manner. It is a quality which aids the attraction of funding and the continued development of these important areas of the University’s work. 7.10 A further example is of the museum studies course at the University. Ironically those students who are being educated and trained to manage important museum collections are doing so despite the absence of adequate and proper museum facilities at the University. The proposed development would provide just such an opportunity. 7.11 Elsewhere within the proposed building would be facilities which the University through use or association would be directly involved in. Accommodation for the University’s security system would be provided. Facilities could be used in conjunction with the museum area or as separate teaching accommodation. Hospitality facilities would be open to all but contain a University theme which would also specifically encourage University graduates to return. It could also be utilised by the University for, for example, receiving dignitaries, visitors, who would be able to see from the displays and facilities in the building examples of the University’s various areas of excellence. 7.12 The top floor, in particular, would provide essentially leisure facilities which would be open to general use although clearly included within this would be University access for students, staff, etc. However it is also important to stress that the funding for any development of this nature is privately driven and therefore implicit in this is the need for the overall development to be financially viable. As a consequence it is unlikely that such a facility could proceed without the income generating elements such as a leisure club. 7.13 Concern was raised by the Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council over the amount of retail floor space involved. Quite correctly my assessment has been based on floor space which falls within Class I of the Use Classes Order 1998 and therefore excludes restaurants, snack bars. etc which are Class Ill. It is therefore not necessary to invoke policies for retail impact assessment due to the limited amount of retail floorspace involved. 7.14 Other Issues: The infrastructure for transportation and drainage approvals can and would be met for the development on the site. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS 8.1 The objections lodged against this application have primarily related to the two main issues of visual impact in respect of the mediaeval skyline and the appropriateness of the uses contained within the proposed buildings. The site lies in a prominent position on the main approach into St Andrews, however prominence does not fully equate with intrusiveness or visual detriment. The positioning of the building some 50 metres back from the road frontage would enable the important view of the mediaeval skyline to be retained. Other less important and more subordinate views, across the North Haugh for example would be more directly affected but are not as critical in the visual assessment. 8.2 With respect to the proposed uses there would clearly be a strong linkage with the University through its presence and involvement within the building. The proposal would facilitate the provision of important new accommodation befitting the technological, academic and research reputation which the University holds internationally. There would be commercially driven facilities within the proposal but these are essential to the viability of the proposal overall and in turn the provision of the constituent uses. 9.0 RECOMMENDATION AND REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF A DEPARTURE 9.1 A departure to the development plan in respect of the proposed uses is considered to be acceptable in this instance due to the need for the building to be commercially viable and that without the commercial elements to the proposal the important University facilities proposed would not be possible. 9.2 In view of the preceding comments I recommend that planning permission be granted for the proposal subject to conditions and a Section 75 Agreement, listed below. Conditions: 1. The development to which this permission relates must begin no later than 5 years from the date of this permission. 2. The uses of the building shall be restricted to those indicated on the approved plans and shall be use for no other purpose without the express prior approval of this Council. 3. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, a fixed datum point shall be agreed with this Planning Authority and marked on the site, and on an approved plan and this agreed datum point will be utilised for future reference as the development proceeds. The developer shall notify this Planning Authority at the stages listed below and no work whatsoever shall take place until after formal clearance is issued by this Planning Authority at each of the following stages:- (a) The completion of foundation work. 4. BEFORE ANY WORK STARTS ON SITE, details of the specification and colour of the proposed external finishes shall be agreed in writing by this Planning Authority. 5. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, the developer shall secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a detailed written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the developer and agreed by and approved in writing by this Planning Authority. 6. All existing pedestrian and cycle routes from the student halls through and adjacent to the site shall be maintained, in addition to a pedestrian link to the main bus stop on the A91. 7. Pedestrian crossing points shall be provided on the access road to the roundabout as marked in YELLOW on the approved plan. 8. A minimum of 100 car parking spaces and three coach parking spaces shall be provided within the site, Details of the surfacing and delineation of these shall be lodged for the prior written approval of this Planning Authority. In addition provision for a further 50 spaces for future overspill parking with the site shall be made. 9. Cycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with a detailed scheme submitted for the prior written approval of this Planning Authority. 10. BEFORE THE ACCESS IS BROUGHT INTO USE, visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 90 metres shall be provided in both directions at the junction of the new access with the existing road, as shown coloured GREEN on the stamped approved plan. Thereafter these shall be permanently maintained free from any obstructions exceeding a height of one metre above the adjacent road channel levels. 11. All roadside boundary markers shall be permanently maintained at a height not exceeding one metre above the adjacent road channel level. 12. BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT IS OCCUPIED, a turning area shall be provided within the site capable of accommodating the largest size of vehicle expected to be used by or serve the development. A detailed plan showing the design and specification to a scale not less than 1:500 shall be submitted for the written approval of this Planning Authority before any work commences on site. 13. Before any works start on site, adequate wheel cleaning facilities shall be provided at the entrance/exit to the site such that no mud, debris or other deleterious material is carried by vehicles onto the public roads. Such facilities shall be retained and maintained for the duration of operations on the site. Details of the facilities shall be agreed in writing by this Planning Authority. 14. All trees existing on the site at the date of this decision shall be retained to the satisfaction of this Planning Authority and no trees shall have roots cut or be lopped, topped, felled, uprooted or removed unless with the prior agreement in writing of this Planning Authority. 15. BEFORE ANY WORKS START ON SITE, the developer shall submit, details and specifications of the protective measures necessary to safeguard the trees on the site during development operations. This Planning Authority shall be formally notified in writing of the completion of such measures and no work on site shall commence until the Planning Authority has confirmed in writing that the measures as implemented are acceptable. The protective measures shall be retained in a sound and upright condition throughout the development operations and no building materials, soil or machinery shall be stored in or around the protected area, including the operation of machinery. Reasons: 1. To fully reserve the rights of the Fife Council as Planning Authority in accordance with Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or any subsequent Orders revoking or re-enacting that Order). 2. To enable the Planning Authority to exercise proper control over the future uses of the building. 3. To enable this Planning Authority to establish that the development is commencing from the correct level based on an agreed fixed datum point; and (a) In order to ensure that site works are progressing in
accordance with the stamped approved plan. To ensure that the development as implemented does not result in any changes in levels to those as approved which may be unacceptable in relation to either site circumstances or the relationship with surrounding sites. 4. In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure that the external finishing materials are appropriate to the character of the area. 5. In order to safeguard the archaeological heritage of the site and to ensure that the developer provides for an adequate opportunity to investigate, record and rescue archaeological remains on the site, which lies within an area of archaeological importance. 6. to 8. missing from report for some reason. 9. To ensure adequate provision of off-street car parking. 10. In the interests of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate visibility at the junction of the vehicular crossing to the site and the public road. 11 In the interests of road safety; to ensure the provision of adequate visibility at road junctions. 12. In the interests of road safety; to reasonably avert the reversing of vehicles onto the main road. 13. In the interests of road safety; to eliminate the deposit of deleterious material on public roads. 14. In the interests of visual amenity; to ensure that all trees worthy of retention are satisfactorily protected before and during construction works. 15. In order to ensure that no damage is caused to the existing trees during development operations. Section 75 Heads of Agreement 1. Future control over the nature of the uses of the building and public access thereto. 2. Provision of park and ride facilities. 3. Future provision and/or contribution to an interpretation facility at Petheram Bridge. Jim Birrell AREA PLANNING MANAGER (EAST) Background Papers Under Section 50(d) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the following background papers were relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. 1. Fife Structure Plan 1994 |