Go straight to points raised regarding: Scooniehill   Kingask   Feddinch

THE FIFE COUNCIL - STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - DEPARTURES FROM DEVELOPMENT PLAN HEARINGS - ST. ANDREWS.

17th June, 1999 2.00 p.m. - 6.00 p.m. 6.30 p.m. - 7.30 p.m.

PRESENT:

Councillors W. Brand (Chair), W. Aitken, A.D. Arbuckle, D. Arnott, J. Cameron, M.F. Coyne, P.C. Douglas, P. Grant, W. Kay, A.C. Kenney, J.A. Liston, A. Martin, F.M. Melville, S. Randall, R.M. Rumney and J. Simpson.

ATTENDING:

Head of Planning, Team Leader, Development Control Section, Planning Service (East Area); Head of Transportation; Transportation Policy and Planning Manager; Team Leader (Planning), Transportation Service; Committee Manager (Strategic and Policy Development) and Committee Administrator (Mr. W. Welsh), Law and Administration Service.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE:

Councillors A. McGarry, A. McGovern, W. O’Sullivan, D. Rougvie J.P. Simpson, R.J. Taylor and B. Thacker.

1. GOLF COURSE PLANNING APPLICATIONS - ST. ANDREWS

The Committee considered report dated 26th May, 1999 by the Head of Planning on the undernoted three planning applications for golf related developments in the St. Andrews area. The report presented the application details, site and planning histories, consultation responses and summaries of objections and representations received to each of the three applications. Appendices to the report summarised all relevant policies since for the most part these were common to all three applications.

Application Number 08-99-0051 D - Outline application for 2 golf courses, clubhouse, leisure facilities, residential units and golf academy at Scooniehill Farm, By St. Andrews: St. Andrews international Golf Club Limited.

Application Number 08-99-001 CD - Erection of hotel, conference centre and related accommodation, steading spa, leisure club house and facilities, golf clubhouse, ancillary facilities, 2 golf courses and landscaping at Kingask Estate, By St. Andrews: St. Andrews Bay Development Limited.

Application Number 08-99-0013D - Outline application for leisure development, including 18 hole golf course, 600 holiday units, 150/200 bedroom hotel, clubhouse and 350 conference suites, spa, sports leisure facilities and golf range at Lumbo Farm, Feddinch Estates and Mount Melville Estates, St. Andrews: Mr. M.A. Johnstone.

The Chair pointed out that the meeting had been arranged to hear those who had submitted written representations to the three planning applications and who had intimated their wish to be heard. Copies of the written representations had been considered to members of the Committee attending the meeting. Applicants would also be allowed an opportunity to address the Committee in accordance with Council procedures. Any new information material to the Council’s consideration of any of the applications would be included in a report which the Head of Planning would submit to Strategic Development Committee which would determine the applications at a meeting to be held in Fife House, Glenrothes on Wednesday, 7th July, 1999.

The following is a summary of points made by speakers for or against the respective applications:-

(A) SCOONIEHILL APPLICATION

Dr. Frank Riddell (on behalf of Royal Burgh of St. Andrews Community Council)

(1) The St. Andrews Study is a great significance to the consideration of the applications including Scooniehill. The application is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Study.

(2) In particular the development is contrary to paragraphs 3.2.2 (St. Andrews is at landscape capacity and there should be no major expansion); 3.2.5 (the landscape setting of St. Andrews is crucial and must be protected and enhanced); 3.2.6 (need to contain, spread and consider a Green Belt); 3.2.13 (environment under threat from traffic congestion); 3.2.18 (overcrowding of educational facilities) and section 4.1 of the St. Andrews Strategic Study (maintain the identity of St. Andrews including its landscape setting).

(3) The proposals are contrary to policies of the St. Andrews Local Plan in particular Policy E15 (New buildings to be located within settlement boundaries) E16 (Within areas of Great Landscape Value retention and enhancement of existing landscape quality and high design standards will be overriding considerations) and NPPG11 (Golf Course should not justify unacceptable developments) and policies E11 and 12 of the Structure Plan.

(4) The development would add to the housing pressures in St. Andrews, would put more pressure on the already overcrowded Health Centre and would add to the pressures on Madras College.

(5) There would be additional traffic generated in the town centre.

(6) More tourists would appear in the town contrary to the Tourism Strategy which recognises that the town has almost reached saturation point in Summer.

(7) The hopes of achieving a Green Belt around St. Andrews to protect the unique environment of the town would be seriously damaged.

(8) In terms of the St. Andrews Area Local Plan Policy E1 an “Environmental Assessment” should be required before any planning consent is considered.

Elizabeth Williams (on behalf of St. Andrews Preservation Trust)

(1) Representations made by Community Council on Policy endorsed by Trust.

(2) The case has not been made out about benefit to the local economy.

(3) The scale of the development is too large and will cause unacceptable pressure on the infrastructure of the town.

(4) The landscape setting which makes outstanding contribution to St. Andrews would be destroyed.

(5) An adequate location map detailing contour lines should be required before any planning consent is considered.

(6) The proposed development lies within an Area of Great Landscape Value.

(7) The proposed development would have an effect on the heritage of St. Andrews.

(8) The provision of golf courses should not provide the justification for approving associated developments.

Elizabeth Williams thereafter answered a question put to her by Councillor F.M. Melville for clarification.

Paul Lewis (on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage)

(1) The application should be subject to a full Environmental Assessment under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1998.

(2) The Council should request details for all Reserved Matters to be submitted for consideration along with the application.

(3) Should the Council not be minded to require an Environmental Assessment and to request Reserved Matters, Scottish Natural Heritage would wish to be notified in order that a number of conditions could be identified to ensure that the development achieved a proper fit with the landscape.

(4) Some development could possibly be carried out if done sensitively. Unlikely that amount proposed would be acceptable but difficult to judge without an Assessment.

Clayton Hardisty

(1) If the application were to be approved, golf would be played within 300 metres of houses and rights of way with the resultant prospect of persons being hit or injured by stray golf balls.

(2) With the proposed siting of the golf course there was an absolute certainty that property would be damaged by stray golf balls.

(3) The area is currently part of unspoilt countryside and home to a variety to wildlife which would be disturbed by the proposed development.

(4) The proposed re-routed access would increase traffic to 600 per day in peak periods with increased risk particularly to young children.

(5) There is insufficient space for the size of development proposed.

Professor Nigel Rapport

(1) Loss of privacy in what is a quiet and rural area. A 4-year time span had been intimated in the proposal between the plans being passed and the building of the new Course and Club being completed. If approval was given the Council should be given an assurance that the completion of the project would be as soon after commencement as possible.

(2) The existing flora and fauna in the area would be disrupted. Ecological advice should be taken. More planting of trees should be undertaken.

(3) The proposed new access road requires to be well screened and kept away from the existing steadings.

Glen L. Pride (on behalf of the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland)

(1) The three developments are contrary to paragraph 3 of Planning Advice Note Number 41 (approvals contrary to the Development Plan).

(2) If all three applications were to be approved they would be in competition with each other.

(3) The viability of this and the other developments are doubtful.

(4) There would be no promised financial boost to St. Andrews as management and other jobs would be filled by people from outwith St. Andrews.

(5) Economic benefit arguments unfounded.

(6) If all three applications were to be approved the anticipated additional vehicles using the road system in St. Andrews would create unacceptable additional pollution and noise.

(7) Traffic schemes impracticable. Heritage of St. Andrews will be seriously damaged.

Bob Murray (on behalf of St. Andrews Green Belt Forum)

(1) The Green Belt Forum represents 34 local and national organisations.

(2) No response has yet been received from the Council on the proposal that a Green Belt be established around St. Andrews.

(3) The application site forms part of the proposed Green Belt which should be a material consideration.

(4) Golf courses can be acceptable Green Belts if they were sympathetically designed but not the associated accommodation. The current development was not acceptable.

Mr. Murray thereafter answered questions put to him from Councillors Douglas, Kenney and Coyne for clarification.

Ian Fraser (on behalf of the agent Fraser Halliday Munro) and
Fred Dalgarno (Chairman of St. Andrews International Golf Club)

(1) As this was an outline application not all details were known at this stage. Considerable information had been provided and meetings had taken place.

(2) The quality of the site was recognised and aspects of the development could lead to enhancement. Buildings occupied the site of basic farm buildings of no merit which were currently visible from St. Andrews.

(3) Proposals were indicative only at this stage. Design would be of high standard using quality materials.

(4) Information received from the Scottish Sports Council had indicated that there was a demand for golf courses in Scotland.

(5) The proposed accommodation would be for use by members and not for selling on in the future.

(6) The proposed golf courses would be designed to avoid dangers to children and walkers using rights of way.

(7) As part of the proposals, rights of way, bridal paths and footways would be improved.

(8) There would be numerous economic and tourism benefits for the residents of St. Andrews with the tourism season being extended.

(9) The proposal which would start in 2001 would create inward investment of £25M and 107 direct + 120 “spin-off” full-time jobs would be created.

(10) The additional traffic impact on St. Andrews had been accepted by the Councils Transportation Service.

Messrs. Fraser and Dalgarno thereafter answered questions put to them from Councillors Kenney, Arnott, Melville, Arbuckle, Grant, Randall and Simpson for clarification.

The following is a summary of points made by speakers for or against the respective applications:-

(B) KINGASK APPLICATION

Louise Rodger

(1) The land on which the proposal is to be located is currently Grade 3.1 land and not Grade 1 land as indicated in press articles associated with this application.

(2) Woodland planting proposed as part of the application would assist the environment of the area.

(3) A large number of full-time jobs would be created directly as a result of the proposed development and indirectly through tourism.

(4) The proposed development would only be visible from 9 houses in Boarhills.

(5) Less pesticide is used on golf courses than agricultural land leading to greater variety of wildlife.

(6) The site can be seen only from parts of the coastal footpath.

Louise Rodger thereafter answered questions put to her from Councillors Coyne, Liston and Kenney for clarification.

Dr. Frank. Riddell (on behalf of Royal Burgh of St. Andrews Community Council)

(1) The application is contrary to the Fife Structure Plan, St. Andrews Area Local Plan and the St. Andrews Strategic Study. The relevant policies from which the proposal departs are as referred to in representations on the Scooniehill application.

(2) Two additional grounds were however relevant. Local Plan policy E17 (adjacency to Site of Special Scientific Interest) and Policy E21 (development on the unbuilt coast).

(3) Representations in support of the application have failed to understand or have been mislead as to the nature of the application.

(4) There will be 750 more vehicles using the streets of St. Andrews daily causing additional noise and pollution on streets which at times are already overcrowded.

(5) There will be more pressure for development in St. Andrews with additional demand on Madras College and the Health facilities created by the extra growth.

(6) There were approximately 900 representations to the consultation exercise on the St. Andrews Strategic Study the overwhelming majority of which supported a Green Belt policy.

(7) The development is not consistent with a Green Belt policy.

(8) The letter of 14th June, 1999 from Historic Scotland to Fife Council is endorsed by the Community Council.

(9) The proposed traffic management plan is imprecise and unworkable.

(10) Tankers transporting raw sewage would require to travel through Lamond drive in St. Andrews for a period of up to 2 years.

Dr. Riddell thereafter answered questions put to him from Councillors Kenney and Coyne for clarification.

Dorothea Morrison (on behalf of the St. Andrews Preservation Trust Limited)

(1) Traffic needs to be reduced in St. Andrews not increased.

(2) There are 30 Grade A listed buildings in St. Andrews and large construction vehicles could cause damage to these properties. The historic care of the town needs to be preserved.

(3) During the summer holiday period tourism within St. Andrews is already at saturation point. Golf is not the only visitor attraction. More development may deter visitors.

(4) The development contravenes numerous planning policies. The landscape setting of the town must be protected.

(5) There would be light pollution from the development.

(6) The proposed site is contained in part of the unbuilt coast and development should not be allowed. (NPPG13).

(7) The development contravenes NPPG43 - Key Issues for golf courses and related development.

(8) The Council’s proposed Green Transportation Plan could not be enforced.

(9) The Green Belt policy should be introduced.

(10) St. Andrews could not cope with the proposed number of additional visitors. (11) St. Andrews has enough conference facilities.

Dorothea Morrison thereafter answered a question put to her from Councillor Kenney for clarification.

Caroline Gallagher (on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage)

(1) The golf courses in themselves are not opposed nor is development at the steading.

(2) The scale and nature of the proposed built development is inappropriate and would have significant adverse visual and landscape impacts. There would be erosion of the landscape value.

(3) The proposed built development would not be compatible with criteria in National Planning Policy Guidance and current development plans to ensure appropriate and sensitive siting for development.

(4) The application proposes new building in the countryside and would create a new settlement which is out of character with the land.

(5) The proposed planting would at best take a long time to become established.

(6) Scottish Natural Heritage would wish to be consulted on any proposed modifications, conditions and planning agreements should the Council consider approving the application.

Caroline Gallagher thereafter answered questions put to her from Councillors Kenney and Douglas for clarification.

Diane Holman (on behalf of the Association of the Protection of Rural Scotland)

(1) There would be a serious adverse affect on the environment, in particular:

    (i) The proposed site is currently part of an unspoilt coastal area.

    (ii) There is a need to increase tranquillity in the area not decrease it.

    (iii) The development would be visually intrusive. The hotel is on a prominent site.

    (iv) There would be an increase in light pollution.

(2) A Green Belt should be established around St. Andrews.

(3) The development is contrary to Local policies and National Guidelines.

(4) Development in an Area of Great Landscape Value should not be supported.

(5) The nature of the proposal will represent a permanent loss of amenity.

(6) Urban sprawl should be minimised.

Diane Holman thereafter answered a question put to her from Councillor Kenney for clarification.

Edwina V.W. Proudfoot

(1) A previous application for a similar development had already been refused.

(2) The scale of the proposed development is too large, is sited at an unsuitable location and would have a detrimental effect on the infrastructure of St. Andrews.

(3) The proposed development would create light pollution.

(4) The proposed development is contrary to the Fife Structure Plan, St. Andrews Area Local Plan and the St. Andrews Strategic Study.

(5) The view of the town would be compromised by the proposed development.

(6) Approximately 10 acres of the proposed site would be used for new buildings and car parks.

(7) There would be a lack of long-term full-time jobs for St. Andrews residents and many of the jobs would only be part-time during the season.

Edwina Proudfoot thereafter answered a question put to her from Councillor Kenney for clarification.

Miss M.O. Abbott

(1) The proposed location of the development is beside unbuilt coastline which should be protected. (Local Plan policy E21).

(2) There is no demand in the area for additional golf courses or related development buildings.

(3) The proposed development would have major environmental, visual amenity, landscape amenity and road safety implications for St. Andrews.

(4) The existing character of St. Andrews and surrounding area should be preserved as it is for future generations to enjoy.

(5) the application should be refused for the reasons given for refusing the previous outline application.

Alistair Lawson (on behalf of the Scottish Rights of Way Society)

(1) Contained within the proposed development site are currently 2 well established rights of way, 1 from Kingask, passing east of Kinkell and so to the south, and the other from Winchester via Kittock’s Den and thus to the coast, both routes then linking with the line of the coastal path and as such should be fully protected or alternatively diverted if the application were to be approved.

Raymond Furness

(1) Part of the proposed development site is unspoiled coast which would be lost forever.

(2) The hotel is too large and grandiose. Small hotel may be more acceptable.

(3) The proposed development would create light pollution.

(4) Pollution from increased traffic in St. Andrews would increase risk of accident and damage to listed buildings. Lamond Drive has been traffic calmed and is not suitable for development traffic.

(5) The part-time seasonal jobs that would be created would be given to people from abroad not local people.

Mr. Furness thereafter answered a question put to him by Councillor Kenney for clarification.

P.A. Hardie

(1) The proposed development would create additional traffic in the town of St. Andrews for which it had not been planned.

(2) The historic care of St. Andrews as a Burgh based on 3 original streets is fragile and requires protection from traffic.

(3) Visitors to the proposed new development would expect to be able to play on the Old Course and this would not be possible.

(4) Any proposed development should be delayed until such time as a St. Andrews by-pass had been constructed.

(5) A traffic impact assessment had resulted in a proposed increase in traffic of approximately 14%.

(6) Construction traffic would require to travel via Lamond Drive which would cause road safety issues. Materials should be brought in by sea.

(7) Tankers transporting raw sewage would require to travel through St. Andrews for a period up to 2 years.

(8) The proposed landscaping will be inadequate to screen the site in view of the climate and effects of North Sea winds.

Mrs. G.B. Stevens

(1) The Council’s Road Safety Plan for Fife indicates that St. Andrews was currently an accident black spot and the proposed development would generate increased traffic. (2) The Council had approved the St. Andrews Transportation Strategy but currently there was no money to implement the proposals contained therein. (3) Any proposed developments should be delayed until such time as the transport problems had been resolved.

Mrs. Margaret Goudie

(1) The Council was promoting “Safe Routes to Schools” which could not be achieved as the proposed development would generate additional traffic in St. Andrews.

(2) The offer by the developer to pay for traffic measures proves that the proposals will make traffic worse.

(3) New mini-roundabouts make the situation worse for pedestrians.

(4) Traffic calming was introduced after a fatal accident in Lamond Drive. Additional traffic should not be encouraged to use that road.

(5) There is no demand for additional golf courses in the St. Andrews area.

(6) The setting of St. Andrews as a small town without urban sprawl would be ruined irreparably.

(7) The scale of the proposed development is beyond what St. Andrews is capable of sustaining and goes against all the existing planning documents for the St. Andrews area.

Fiona Donald

(1) The proposed development is to be situated on part of the unspoilt coastline. The sense of “wildness” would be lost.

(2) Additional golf courses are unnecessary.

(3) The proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the wildlife in the area.

Professor Emeritus Terence Lee (on behalf of the St. Andrews Green Belt Forum)

(1) The Forum represents approximately 30 national and local bodies.

(2) The site is located in an area of high scenic value with a lack of human intrusion.

(3) A Green Belt is required around St. Andrews to prevent sprawl.

(4) The proposed development is located on part of the current unspoilt coastline.

(5) Golf courses may be tolerable in a Green Belt but the associated buildings “create clutter” and are not acceptable.

(6) There is currently no shortage in seasonal short-term employment. Jobs would be filled other than by local people.

(7) Visitors to the proposed development would expect to be able to play on the Old Course and this would not be possible.

(8) The A9l7 which is one of the most difficult roads in Scotland on which to introduce traffic calming would require to take additional traffic creating accident black spots.

(9) The “four pillars of St. Andrews” University, Golf, Tourism and Historic setting had to be retained in balance.

Professor Lee thereafter answered a question put to him from Councillor Kenney for clarification.

Andrew Angus

(1) The proposed development would create additional traffic in St. Andrews.

(2) There is no objection to golf courses as long as they are sympathetically designed but no associated development buildings should be approved.

(3) The scale of the proposals is too great and would put pressure on the infrastructure of the town.

Victor Hamilton (on behalf of the applicants, St. Andrews Bay Development Limited) and
Desmond Montgomery (on behalf of the agents Montgomery, Forgan Associates)

(1) The principle of development was already established by the existing consent which was re-awarded in January, 1998.

(2) The site is adjacent to the Fife Tourist route on which tourist development is specifically encouraged by Policy ED5 in the St. Andrews Area Local Plan.

(3) The development is largely in line with the principles of both the St. Andrews Area Local Plan and the Fife Structure Plan.

(4) The applicant is the owner of the site and as such has injected funds into the local economy through the purchase of goods and services.

(5) The applicant is the sole investor in the proposed development which would not rely on Regional Selective Assistance or any form of inward investment grants.

(6) The proposed development would create long-term employment and would inject some £14m into the local economy.

(7) There would be no development on the cliff and shore, only a reinforcement and enhancement of the rural footpaths network.

(8) The natural habitat would be greatly enhanced by extending the cliff top flora into the proposed golf course buffer zones and rough areas and which would result in a 50-fold increase in indigenous vegetation.

(9) Substantial woodland planting would be introduced as a backdrop to the proposed Hotel development and to reinforce existing mature plantations on the southern boundary of the proposed site. The proposed development is located almost 2½ miles from the nearest of the significant viewpoints in the town and as such would have a negligible visual impact on St. Andrews.

(10) The traffic generation projections are within acceptable limits and would be controlled through an enforceable Traffic Management Plan and Section 75 agreement.

(11) If tankering of raw sewage was required at all, it would likely mean a maximum of 1 vehicle per week which would be routed to by-pass St. Andrews altogether, and for a few weeks at most until the planned Sewage Treatment Works was completed.

Messrs Hamilton and Montgomery thereafter answered questions put to them from Councillors Melville, Arbuckle, Liston, Randall, Arnott, Kenney and Douglas for clarification.

The Hearings then adjourned at 6.00 p.m - The Hearings reconvened at 6.30 p.m.

PRESENT:

Councillors W. Brand (Chair), W. Aitken, A.D. Arbuckle, 0. Arnott, J. Cameron, P.C. Douglas, W. Kay, A.C. Kenney, J.A. Liston, F.M. Melville, S. Randall, R.M. Rumney and J. Simpson.

ATTENDING:

Head of Planning, Team Leader, Development Control Section, Planning Service (East Area); Head of Transportation; Transportation Policy and Planning Manager; Team Leader (Planning), Transportation Service; Committee Manager (Strategic and Policy Development) and Committee Administrator (Mr. W. Welsh), Law and Administration Service.

The following is a summary of points made by speakers for or against the respective applications:-

(C) FEDDINCH APPLICATION

Dr. Frank Riddell (on behalf of the Royal Burgh of St. Andrews Community Council)

(1) The application is contrary to Local Plan policies E15, E16 and E20. NPPG11 cannot be held to justify the proposals.

(2) The scale of the proposed development is too large to be taken seriously and further details are required.

(3) The proposed site of the development is either on Grade 2 or Grade 3.1 land, being prime agricultural land.

(4) The proposed development is contrary to policies contained in the Fife Structure Plan, St. Andrews Area Local Plan and the St. Andrews Strategic Study. There is a need to apply these policies clearly and consistently.

(5) The traffic pressures would be enormous. There would be traffic gridlock in St. Andrews as a result of the additional traffic which the proposed development would generate.

(6) The proposal would create substantial demand for new housing and create additional pressure for Madras College and health facilities.

(7) The scale of the development would cause serious damage to the heritage of St. Andrews.

(8) The proposed site is located within an Area of Great Landscape Value.

Elizabeth Williams (on behalf of the St. Andrews Preservation Trust

(1) The submission of the Community Council is wholeheartedly supported.

(2) Not enough is known about the application.

(3) The buildings associated with the proposed development would be visible from all the higher points in St. Andrews.

(4) An urban village would be created. Holiday Villages (NPPG11) require an Environmental Assessment to be submitted.

(5) The town would be gridlocked with the additional traffic that the proposed development would generate.

(6) Consideration should be given to the creation of a Green Belt around the town.

Paul Lewis (on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage)

(1) In view of the location, size, scale and nature of the proposed development the application should be subject to an Environmental Assessment.

(2) There are reservations even at this stage based on information given that the application could be acceptable.

(3) The Council should require all Reserved Matters to be submitted which should include the location, nature, layout and scale of all built development and associated infrastructure.

(4) If the Council are minded not to request a full Environmental Assessment and/or Reserved Matters, Scottish Natural Heritage would wish to be notified to enable them to submit a response at outline stage.

lsobel Falconer

(1) The Council should follow its own policies and plans.

(2) The sheer scale of the proposed development is out of proportion to its surroundings.

(3) Privacy would be destroyed, views lost and light pollution created all to the loss of the amenity of the area.

(4) There would be increased traffic generated which would require to use the A9l5 a road on which children require to walk to reach Kilrymont Primary School. The road would also be more dangerous for cyclists.

(5) The road junction at Craigtoun is dangerous.

(6) The quality of St. Andrews as a tourist destination would be reduced leading to fewer tourists.

(7) The “Gateway” application had already been approved which would serve the needs of St. Andrews. The proposed development was therefore not required.

Margaret Goudie

(1) Insufficient information has been provided with the application but it is clear from that which exists that the application would alter the character of St. Andrews.

(2) The application site encroaches onto the proposed Green Belt. The peace and solitude of the area would be destroyed.

(3) In effect a new village would be created.

(4) There will be additional pressure on all the roads from St. Andrews not just the A915. Designated cycle routes would be used for the additional traffic generated.

(5) The increased traffic that would be generated from the proposed development would result in gridlock in St. Andrews.

Mrs. D. Munro

(1) Local residents had not been given enough information relating to the proposed development. (2) 66% of affected residents had not been issued with the required neighbourhood notifications. (3) Extensive woodland would be affected by the proposals despite assertions by the applicant. (4) Jobs to be created by the proposed development would only be part-time and seasonal and would not be given to locals. (5) Once instructed the hotel and holiday homes cannot be reversed, unlike the golf courses.

Mr. Bennett. Solicitor (on behalf of CAPTA Company Limited)

(1) The need for such a development in St. Andrews had not been established.

(2) The character of the area would be lost. The quality of St. Andrews as town of worldwide reputation should not be diminished by large scale inappropriate development.

(3) Planning permission for any large-scale development in the Area of Great Landscape value around St. Andrews would pre-empt consideration of a Green Belt for the town.

Michael A. Johnstone (Applicant)

Mr. Johnstone indicated that contrary to the apparent belief of those objecting to the development, it was not proposed to construct a hotel or conference suite. Discussions had taken place with Planning Officials. The numbers of holiday homes had to be discussed further and finalised. The applicants had a proven track record of completing developments having recently finished a high quality hotel development at Carnoustie for the 1999 Open. The development proposed would similarly be of high quality and bring great benefits to St. Andrews and the wider area.

In particular it was proposed to employ people from areas of unemployment such as the East Neuk and to train people to give them the skills necessary for jobs created by the development. High quality timeshare accommodation extends the tourist season and visitors spend 30% more on average locally than hotel guests generating more income for the local economy.

Steps would be taken to minimise traffic including providing shuttle buses for visitors and staff. It was recognised that more information would be necessary which the applicant was happy to provide. If the Council approved the application in outline, greater details would be provided as part of subsequent reserved matters applications.

In regard to the discrepancy between the description of the proposed development as understood by those making representations and as described by the applicant the Committee, having taken advice from the Committee Manager, noted that the meeting had been called to hear representations to the application as it had been registered (ref. 08-99-00130) and as it had been described in the reports circulated for the meeting.

The Hearings then concluded at 7.30 p.m.