Part 2 - Summary of the case for the appellant

9. On behalf of the International Golf Club of St Andrews Ltd it was indicated that it is important to understand how the proposed club will operate. The proposal is to operate a private members club, which would be geared primarily to the overseas and particularly the US market. The international membership is at the heart of the operation and although UK residents could join they would be restricted to a maximum of 150 members. International membership entitles members and their guests to use one of the accommodation suites for one week per annum. Only members and their guests would be permitted to play the courses. Therefore, members of the public cannot expect to turn up and play. The development is not a pay-as-you-play facility. However , given the existing availability of pay-as-you-play courses in the area it is considered that St Andrews is already well served with respect to this type of facility. In addition, there would be a separate class of membership which would allow those living in the area to join the proposed leisure and fitness club.

10. In support of your client’s case it was stated that the proposal was consistent with the policies in the development plan and other policy documents regarding the development of tourism and the promotion of golf related facilities. St Andrews is recognised in the approved structure plan as offering a major opportunity to increase jobs and to generate income for the local economy. It is also noted that in the text relating to Policy E13 in the adopted local plan one of the exceptions to the general presumption against development in the countryside relates to proposals which would bring economic benefit to the local community. Furthermore, the council’s document on the ‘Strategic Overview of Golf Courses’ recognises the importance of golf tourism as a provider of jobs. The structure plan also recognises the international status of St Andrews as the home of golf and confirms that consideration should be given to projects outwith the town which could capitalise on its name as a well known tourist destination. In the local plan, Policies ED5 and ED6 specifically encourage the development of facilities which would enhance the range and quality of tourist attractions. It is submitted that this is precisely what the present proposal attempts to do.

11. In support of your client’s case, the importance of tourism to the local economy and the vital role that the promotion of golf related proposals plays within the overall strategy were emphasised. Reference was made to various documents produced by Fife Council, Scottish Enterprise Fife, the Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board and the Scottish Executive Supporting this view and advocating the promotion of improved golf facilities. In terms of the proposal at appeal, it is estimated that it would create some 120 jobs during the construction phase, with between approximately 57 and 107 FTE jobs being provided in the operation of the facilities. In addition, it was estimated that a further 55 to 112 jobs would be created in the longer term within the area as a spin-off from the development. Because of the unique nature of this proposal, which will not be competing directly with existing facilities, it was considered that these would be new, not displacement, jobs. It was therefore considered that the project would bring significant economic benefits to the local area.

12. Turning to the land use policies in the development plan, it is accepted that Policy E11 in the approved structure plan, and its equivalent Policy E16 in the local plan, indicate that within Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLVs) development which would have a detrimental visual impact on the landscape will not be supported. It is noted that the policies do not contain a total prohibition on development within the AGLV. The retention of landscape quality and the need for high standards of design are the key criteria. With respect to the appeal site, it is pointed out that the area to the south of the former railway line lies outwith the AGLV. It is indicated that it is within this southern part of the site that the proposed 80 accommodation suites would be located. Within the AGLV the only built development would be the proposed clubhouse and this would be on the site of the existing farm buildings at Scooniehill. The development footprint of the new building would represent a reduction of some 60% in the area covered by the existing steading and it would result in the replacement of unsightly agricultural sheds with a structure that would be well designed and of a scale sympathetic to its surroundings. In your submission, the development would not therefore adversely affect the AGLV but would in fact enhance its character. You note that this was also the view of the Planning Officer in his report to Committee.

13. In terms of the visual impact there are 2 distinct elements to the proposal, i.e. the golf courses and the new buildings. It is submitted that the mere fact that the golf courses would be visible does not automatically mean that they would have an adverse effect on the appearance or amenity of the area. Furthermore, it is argued that in certain circumstances the creation of the golf courses could represent a significant visual improvement over farmland that is in set-aside. You note that the council has acknowledged that the golf courses in themselves are not necessarily unacceptable in visual terms. In the Landscape Assessment of St Andrews carried out by David Tyldesley Associates, the appeal site lies within 2 landscape types. The area to the north of the ridge line, which forms the limits of views from the town, lies within the ‘Open Coastal Hills’. The study states that the greatest threat to this area is from built development and indicates that the landscape capacity of the Open Coastal Hills to accommodate such development is limited. It concludes that new development should therefore be avoided except in juxtaposition to an existing steading, where the use of traditional building forms and materials will be essential. In terms of the proposal at appeal, 30% of the golf courses would be in this landscape area, a significant reduction from the original scheme, and no part of the courses would extend above the 95m contour line thereby taking it off the most sensitive part of the ridge. The built development component of the scheme will be located on the site of the existing steading and it will be designed in traditional style incorporating the farmhouse and cottages. You submit that the proposal therefore takes full account of the guidance in the landscape assessment for this area. In fact, it is your client’s view that the removal and replacement of the steading buildings with your client’s proposal would result in a significant improvement to the visual amenity of the hillside.

14. The second landscape type found within the appeal site is the category known as the ‘Landward Hills’. The part of the site within this landscape type has been described as being the most featureless section of the Landward Hills comprising arable fields and areas of rough grassland with few landscape features except poor hedgerows and stone walls. This area is beyond the immediate setting of St Andrews. Therefore, the proposed lodges and golf courses on this part of the site would not be visible from the town. In the opinion of your client’s landscape architect, only the sides of 2 out of the 10 lodges would be visible at a distance from the A915. In time, and with planting, even this view of the buildings would be largely screened from the main road. You submit that this part of the site has capacity to accommodate change and some development. It is pointed out that the relocation of the residential accommodation to this part of the site was a significant change from the earlier proposal. In the opinion of your expert witness, as the lodges are now sited outwith both the AGLV and the more sensitive Open Coastal Hills, they would be acceptable in landscape terms. Turning to the visual impact analysis carried out by your client’s landscape consultant, it is noted that he concludes that the impact of the proposed development from the key viewpoints will either be acceptable or result in a net improvement to the present situation. This is the result of the removal of the large potato sheds at Scooniehill, the demolition of the water tank, the proposed under-grounding of the overhead electricity cables and the planned landscape planting. You therefore submit that the proposal would not detract from the landscape and that the visual impact of the development is entirely acceptable.

15. In terms of the policies on development in the ‘countryside’, these are set out in Policy E12 in the structure plan and Policy E13 in the local plan. In general terms, these policies advocate a restriction on development in the countryside unless the proposal is related to a rural economic activity or a use which must have a countryside setting. Tourist or recreational uses appropriate to a countryside setting are recognised as being potentially acceptable within the countryside provided the development is properly designed and adequately screened. In the structure plan, the accompanying text indicates that an exception to policy can be made in cases which will be of significant benefit to the local economy. The local plan states that the general policy may be overridden in situations where the proposal must have a countryside location and the development will bring environmental, economic or social benefits to the local community, which will outweigh any disadvantages that are likely to arise. It is also pointed out that in the text associated with Policy E20 in the local plan, golf courses are specifically recognised as an activity requiring a countryside location. Therefore, as the current proposal is tourist related and involves a form of outdoor recreation that requires a countryside location, the development is not contrary to Policies E12 in the structure plan or E13 in the local plan.

16. Policies ED13 in the structure plan and ED9 in the local plan deal with the issue of development on prime quality agricultural land. It is acknowledged that both these policies contain a general resumption against development which would permanently remove or reduce the quality of prime agricultural land. However, you submit that the text supporting these policies contains a recognition that the absolute protection of prime land, particularly in the circumstances of St Andrews, could lead to insurmountable difficulties in accommodating otherwise acceptable development. It is noted that in considering proposal for development on prime land the council will have regard to the views of the Scottish Executive’s Rural Affairs Department (Agriculture). In this case as the irreversible loss of prime land does not extend to 10ha the department had no adverse agricultural comments on the proposal. You note that despite the fact that one of the reasons for refusal of the application related to the loss of prime land, the council’s witness was unable to recall the terms of the response from the department.

17. In terms of other material considerations, the finalised Draft Fife Structure Plan was referred to by a number of the parties. It is noted that most of the policies in this plan remain substantially unaltered from the approved structure plan. However there is one new policy on which comment should be made. The draft structure plan introduces a policy for the designation of a green belt for St Andrews. The precise boundaries of the green belt would not be defined until the local plan was reviewed. You submit that the case for such a designation is not overwhelming and that it is not certain whether this policy will be supported by Scottish Ministers. In any event, even if the appeal site were to be included in the green belt, this would make no difference to the issues before the inquiry as the existing development plan policies already provide adequate protection for the area.

18. The council has indicated that one of the prime purposes of a green belt in St Andrews would be to protect the landscape setting of the town. This is a matter that has been already been considered in terms of the existing development plan policies and the various landscape assessment of the town. As discussed above, you submit that the proposal has been found to be acceptable against these considerations and whether the site is or is not within the green belt adds nothing new to the debate. It is also noted that golf courses are recognised by the council as being an acceptable form of land use in a green belt. Furthermore, given that one of the objectives of green belts is to maintain the identity of towns and that St Andrews is synonymous with golf, you submit that it would be surprising not to find golf courses in any future green belt around the town. Finally, it is noted that the Planning Officer in his report to committee indicated that the proposal was compatible with green belt objectives and would not prejudice any subsequent decision on the issue.

19. Turning to the issue of traffic, it was pointed out that the council, its independent transport consultants and the appellant’s consultants had given detailed consideration to this matter. All found that the traffic implications arising from the development would be acceptable. Although the third parties and the local councillors have tried to cast doubt on the conclusion that the proposal would have a negligible impact on the existing road network, these concerns have not been substantiated by evidence from any professionally qualified engineer. One of the areas in which doubts were raised related to the question of the trip generation figures used. It is explained that a relatively conservative approach was adopted to this matter with the assumption being made that each national member and his guest would arrive separately by car and that 75% of the golf would be played during the summer months. It also has to be remembered that this is to be a private club with no pay-as-you-play facility. Clearly if the proposal did not operate as proposed, the traffic assumptions would be different, but this is the same for any form of development. The alternative trip generation figures suggested by the council relate to pay-as-you-play courses, some of which are also municipal courses, and you submit that the application of these figures to the present proposal would be wholly inappropriate.

20. Lastly, it is stated that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on any wildlife habitats or species of local or regional significance. In your client’s view, the proposed development would provide an opportunity to enhance the biodiversity of the site. The provision of the water features, the increased level of tree planting and inclusion of areas of rough grass within the golf courses would broaden the range of habitat types within the site and encourage more species to live in the area. It is considered that the contribution golf courses can make to the natural heritage is well recognised. In addition, the proposal involves planned improvements to the existing rights-of-way and the provision of new footpaths, cycleways and bridleways. You submit that these would offer significant advantages to the area by promoting improved access to the countryside. In addition, it is not considered that the development would have any detrimental effect on the ‘B’ listed Gregory’s Pillar and the proposal to restore and relocate the structure to its original site would be a positive benefit.