Part 6 - Conclusions

51. Section 25 of the Act requires the determination in this case to be made in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan comprises the Fife Structure Plan, approved by the then Secretary of State in 1994 and the St Andrews Area Local Plan, which was adopted in 1996. In addition, as the proposed development could, potentially, affect the setting of Gregory’s Pillar, a Category ‘B’ listed building, the requirements of section 59(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 also apply in this case. Section 59(1) of that Act requires that special regard shall be paid to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence presented to the inquiry, the written submissions, and the inspection of the appeal site, I consider that the determining issues in this appeal are (i) whether the proposal is consistent with development plan policy; (ii) if not, whether an exception to the provisions of the plan is justified by other material considerations; and, (iii) whether the development would have an adverse effect on the listed building.

52. On the first issue, I note that the approved structure plan indicates in general terms that St Andrews offers a major opportunity to increase jobs and to generate additional income based on the high quality of its environment. This broad statement is supported by Policy ED8, which contains a presumption in favour of tourist proposals which would assist economic development and by Policy ED9 which encourages the development of tourism particularly where the development would provide improved facilities and contribute to the lengthening of the tourist season. I am also aware that Policy ED6 in the adopted local plan supports developments which improve the quality and range of tourist facilities. On the evidence available it would appear that your client’s development has the potential to create additional employment in the running of the golf facilities and to generate some further employment in the area. I appreciate that the precise extent of the impact on the wider local economy was disputed, but for the purposes of my consideration of the proposal against the policies of the development plan, I am satisfied that the development would have some positive economic benefits for the local area. Furthermore, I am aware that the proposed leisure and fitness centre would provide a swimming pool and gym facilities that could be used by local residents who were members.

53. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would assist, at least to a limited extent, with economic development and the tourist industry of the area. I therefore find that the development would be consistent with the terms of Policies ED8 and ED9 in the approved structure plan. For the same reasons, I also consider that the proposal would be in accord with the specific terms of Policy ED6 in the adopted local plan. I am aware that supporting text which accompanies these policies in both the structure and local plans states that the presumption in favour of tourist proposals set out in the above policies will not apply where the development is contrary to other policies in the plans, particularly those relating to environmental protection. It is indicated that developments, especially those that are located in the countryside, should enhance the attractiveness of the area and should not erode the quality of the rural landscape. I intend to deal with these matters below.

54. The other matter which was referred to at the inquiry regarding the economic development policies in the development plan was the question of the loss of prime quality agricultural land. Policies ED13 in the structure plan and ED9 in the local plan address this issue. These policies indicate that there is a presumption against development that would permanently remove or reduce the quality of prime land. In the present case, the appeal site is comprised predominantly of land which falls within Class 2 and Class 3.1, i.e. prime quality agricultural land. I also note that the supporting text recognises the difficulties that can arise in and around St Andrews where virtually all the land that is potentially developable is of prime quality. In addition, I accept that the use of the land for golf courses is not irreversible and that it does not necessarily involve the permanent loss or reduction in the quality of that land. Nevertheless, from the evidence before me it would appear that the development of the lodges, the creation of the water body, and the building of the access roads and parking areas will result in the irreversible loss of just under 10ha of prime quality agricultural land.

55. I am aware that the response from the Scottish Executive’s Rural Affairs Department (Agriculture) indicated that it had no adverse agricultural comment to make on the proposed development. I also appreciate that the text in both the structure and local plans refers to the fact the council will have regard to the views of the department in its consideration of planning appeals. However, I consider that the department’s response is simply an indication that because the net irreversible loss of prime land was less than 10ha, the proposal did not raise matters of national interest. I do not believe that its response has any material effect on the development plan position. Taking all of these matter into consideration, I consider that the proposal would result in the permanent loss of a significant area of prime quality agricultural land and I find that the development would therefore be contrary to the terms of Policies ED13 in the structure plan and ED9 in the local plan. I note that these policies may be over-ridden if the proposal was required to meet other development plan objectives, such as those relating to land for housing or employment and no suitable alternatives were available, but I do not consider that these circumstances apply in this case.

56. Turning to the policies regarding development in the countryside, these are set out in Policies E12 in the structure plan and E13 in the local plan. These policies indicate that the development plan does not support development in the countryside outwith the defined village envelopes unless it is related to rural economic activities such as mineral workings, agriculture, forestry or tourist/recreational uses which must have a countryside setting. In terms of the appeal proposal, the site lies outwith the boundaries of St Andrews and within an area defined as ‘countryside’ in the local plan. Therefore, with respect to these policies, the only ground for favourable consideration of the appeal proposal would be as a tourist or recreation use that requires a location in the countryside. I note that the structure plan indicates that it is for the local plan to set out the development control policies which define those categories of development likely to be acceptable outwith urban areas.

57. In accord with the guidance in National Planning Policy Guideline 3 (NPPG 3), the local plan indicates that in order to protect the attractive and largely unspoilt rural areas, Policy E13 is designed to protect such areas from inappropriate uses which could despoil the character and appearance of the countryside. The plan makes it clear that this policy may only be over-ridden where it can be shown that a development must have a countryside location and that it will bring environmental, economic or social benefits to the local community that outweigh any disadvantages arising from the proposal. In addition, it must be demonstrated that no alternative location exists within the settlement boundaries for the proposed development. In considering the appeal proposal against this policy background, I believe that there are 2 distinct elements to the scheme. Firstly, there is the creation of the 2 golf courses with their associated golf clubhouse. Secondly, there is the proposed development of 8-10 residential lodges, which would provide accommodation for up to 320 people, and the planned leisure and fitness centre attached to the clubhouse building. In terms of the golf courses, given the extensive land requirements, it is obvious that sites for this use are only likely to be available outwith the existing urban areas. In addition, I consider that golf courses are the type of recreational use which would not necessarily be incompatible with a rural setting. I note that this situation is reflected in local plan Policy E20. Consequently, I believe that, in principle, the proposed golf courses would be acceptable uses within the countryside. With respect to the golf clubhouse, I would also accept that, in principle, the need to provide changing and other essential facilities for members using such a recreational facility could be an acceptable ancillary use within the countryside. This is subject to the proviso that the building was of a scale that was commensurate with the scale of the golf facilities proposed and that it did not despoil the character and appearance of the countryside.

58. Turning to the second element of the proposed development, this involves the erection of what would by any measure have to be substantial structures to provide residential accommodation and facilities for the use of up to 320 members and their guests. I appreciate that your client considers that this element of the scheme is an essential component of the proposal. However, I do not consider that residential suites must necessarily be linked to a golf course development or be located in the countryside. In my view, while it may be desirable from your client’s perspective for this part of the development to be located within the appeal site, it is not essential for this to be the case in land use terms. In this context, I note that National Planning Policy Guideline 11 on Sport, Physical Recreation and Open Space (NPPG11) states that “Associated developments, such as hotels or chalets, can improve the attractiveness of an area to tourists and in turn bring employment benefits, but they must be considered on their own planning merits in land use terms. A golf course should not provide the justification for approving an associated use if it would not normally be acceptable in itself” I am aware that you have submitted that the council’s document on ‘A Strategic Overview of Golf Course Proposals in the St Andrews Area’ supports, in principle, the concept of residential accommodation linked to golf courses. However, I note that the document also states that the scale of such developments should be secondary to the golf course element, and that the guidance does not supersede the policies in the development plan. In my view, this non-statutory policy advice is not entirely consistent with the guidance in the NPPG 11, and I consider that little weigh should be attached to it.

59. Taking all the above matters into account, I consider that the development of some 80 accommodation suites is not a use that would normally be acceptable in this location. Neither am I persuaded that this is a use that must be sited in the countryside. In the current proposals, the accommodation suites are already located some 500m from the clubhouse facilities and have little physical or locational relationship with that building. Consequently, in planning terms, I am not satisfied that these residential units require a countryside location and that it would not be possible for this use to be situated within an existing settlement. Similarly, there is no need for the leisure and fitness facilities to be located in the countryside. While these may represent an additional attraction to potential members of the club, they would also be available to local residents who joined the club. In my view, there is no locational reason why such facilities could not be built within the existing urban area. As indicated above the development of the golf courses does not provide a justification for these facilities being located in the countryside. When these uses are considered on their own planning merits, I find that they do not accord with the terms of Policies E12 in the structure plan or E13 in the local plan on development in the countryside. I am aware that the text of the local plan indicates that this policy may be over-ridden in certain circumstances, but I am not persuaded that such exceptional treatment is warranted in this case. This is a matter I will deal with in more detail below.

60. In the strategy section of the structure plan it is indicated that in the St Andrews area the overall approach is to ensure that development happens in a controlled and gradual way, taking account of the considerable environmental and infrastructural constraints. Among the constraints to development, the plan notes the need to retain the attractiveness of the area by preserving the town’s high quality environment and landscape setting. In support of these objectives, structure plan Policy E11 indicates that within Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLVs) proposals for development which will have a detrimental effect on the landscape will not be supported. This concern for the protection of the setting of the town is also set out in Policy E16 in the local plan. This states that within the designated AGLV the retention and enhancement of the existing landscape quality will be the overriding considerations in assessing proposals for development which may be allowed under other policies in the local plan. In terms of these policies, the appeal site lies predominantly within the AGLV, with only that section lying to the south of the former railway line being outwith its boundaries. In assessing the visual impact of the proposal on the landscape of the AGLV there are 2 matters that have to be considered. These are (a) the visual impact of the proposed new clubhouse at Scooniehill, and (b) the effect of the golf courses on the appearance and landscape quality of the area.

61. Dealing firstly with the issue of the new clubhouse, I appreciate that this will be sited close to the site presently occupied by the existing steading buildings at Scooniehill and adjacent to the farmhouse and cottages. I am also aware that the overall development footprint of the new building would be some 60% less than the area covered by the existing buildings. However, although I would accept that the removal of the large agricultural sheds may be a positive step in improving the overall appearance of the area, I am not persuaded that their replacement by the proposed clubhouse and a car park would be beneficial in visual terms. My concerns regarding the new development relate to the appearance of the development as seen from (i) St Andrews, and (ii) the A915 and the Grange Road on the approaches to the town from the south.

62. As seen from the town, I consider that the new clubhouse complex would be located in an unduly prominent and conspicuous position on the skyline. The building would be clearly visible from Bridge Street, Queen’s Terrace and the Ladebraes Walk, as well as from the Old Course and the West Sands. I recognise that the new building is to be no higher than the existing farm house and that efforts would be made to ensure that it is sympathetically designed. In my view, however, the scale of structure being proposed (with a footprint of some 1,000m2) and its location closer to the top of the ridge would make it much more obtrusive on the open hillside than the existing steading buildings. I consider that the present steading buildings are largely screened from view by the ridge that crosses the site and their removal would make little difference to the appearance of the hillside from the town. I appreciate that the farmhouse and the roofs of the cottages can be seen from St Andrews, but I do not consider that these buildings are particularly obtrusive or that they have a significant impact on the landscape.

63. The clubhouse on the other hand would be a substantial building which has been located on this site to capitalise on the splendid views over the town. Inevitably, therefore, it would be visible from the town. I accept that just because the building can be seen does not mean that it is necessarily unacceptable in visual terms. Nevertheless, I consider that it is generally acknowledged that development on the skyline should be avoided whenever possible because of the potential impact it can have over a wide area. In this case, we are dealing with a large building on the skyline in a prominent position within an AGLV that forms an important component of the setting for St Andrews. I am also aware that the various landscape assessments suggest that this is an area which is particularly sensitive to any form of new development. Consequently, having given this matter careful consideration, I find that the proposal to locate the clubhouse on the ridge would represent a visually intrusive and inappropriate form of development on a site that forms a key part of the landscape setting of this historic town. No matter how well designed the building might be, I do not believe that the architectural treatment could overcome the damage done to the landscape by the inappropriate siting of the clubhouse. Similarly, I do not consider that in this particular location attempts to ameliorate the effect of the development through landscaping measures or relating it more closely to the existing trees would be successful in materially reducing the visual impact of the building.

64. I also have reservations over the impact of the new development on the views of St Andrews as seen from the A915 when approaching the town from the south. This is an important route into the town and while the existing steading buildings may not be particularly attractive, I do not accept that their replacement by the proposed clubhouse and an extensive area of car parking would represent an improvement to the visual amenity of the AGLV. The existing buildings are relatively tightly grouped on the slope just below the ridge and the construction of a new building on the skyline would I believe constitute an insensitive form of development which would detract from the views toward the town and the appearance of this open rolling landscape. I appreciate that the guidance in the various landscape assessments suggests that any new development should be related to existing steadings, but in my opinion the buildings at Scooniehill are so prominently situated close to the top of the hill slope that this advice is of limited relevance in this particular case. For similar reasons, I also believe that the new clubhouse and associated development would be unduly conspicuous and obtrusive when viewed from sections of the Grange Road.

65. Turning to the visual impact of the proposed golf courses, I consider that the creation of tees, fairways, greens, bunkers and areas of rough would change the appearance of the open coastal hills to the south of the town. As a result of their location on the north facing slope, parts of the courses would be particularly visible from the town. At present, the area has a pleasant rural and agricultural appearance, which is characterised by the presence of a number of large arable fields. Under your client’s proposal it would take on a more manicured and ‘artificial’ appearance. While I would accept that the question of whether the existing or proposed land uses is more attractive is a matter for subjective judgement, the changes would clearly alter the appearance and character of this area. I note that Policy E16 in the local plan states that within the AGLV the retention and enhancement of the existing landscape quality will be the overriding consideration. In these circumstances, I consider that the replacement of the farmland with golf courses would change the existing landscape quality of the AGLV and I am not persuaded that such a change would necessarily be beneficial. Although I have concerns regarding the effect the golf courses would have on the appearance of the area, these concerns are of a lesser order than my worries regarding the impact of the new building on the ridge. In summary, with regard to Policies E11 in the structure plan and E16 in the local plan, I find that the proposed development, taken as a whole, would have a detrimental effect on the landscape quality of the AGLV.

66. On the first determining issue, I find that support for the proposal can be found in structure plan Policies ED8 and ED9 regarding the promotion of tourism. However, the presumption in favour of tourist developments contained in these policies is clearly subject to the proposal being consistent with the plan’s overall strategy and its other policies. When considered against the environmental and other policies in the structure plan, I conclude that the development would be contrary to Policies E11, E12, and ED13. It would also be contrary to the equivalent policies in the local plan, i.e. Policies E13, E16 and ED9. I therefore find that the proposal is contrary to the terms of the development plan.

67. On the second determining issue, the finalised draft Fife Structure Plan, which was recently approved by the council, contains a number of policies which are relevant to the determination of this application. Although the same weight cannot be attached to the policies in the draft plan as to those in the development plan, as it is the council’s most recent statement of planning policy I consider that some weight should be attached to its provisions. I note that the policies in the draft plan relating to the promotion of tourism, development within the AGLV, the loss of prime quality land and development in the countryside remain broadly similar to those in the approved plan. For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs I do not consider that your client’s proposal accords with these policies. The most significant policy change in the draft plan relates to the intention to designate a green belt around St Andrews. I note that the concept of designating a green belt was also put forward in the conclusions of the St Andrews Strategic Study 1998). The draft plan’s position on the matter is set out in Policy SS7, which indicates that there will be a presumption against all development in the green belt where there is intervisibility between the site and the town’s historic core unless it would result in the enhancement of existing views or in no material alteration to them. While I recognise that this policy has to be considered and approved by Scottish Ministers and the detailed boundaries would have to be defined in a subsequent local plan, given my conclusion on the effect of the proposal on the visual amenity and setting of the town, I do not consider that any support for your client’s proposal can be drawn from this policy. Consequently, I conclude that neither the St Andrews Strategic Study (1998) nor the draft structure plan provide any justification for treating the proposal as an exception to the provisions of the development plan.

68. Turning to the question of the traffic implications of the proposal, I consider that on the basis of the standard methodology used in the Transport Impact Analysis and the trip generation assumptions agreed between the various roads engineers, there is little hard evidence to suggest that the development, if operated as planned, would generate significant additional volumes of traffic. Although the concerns of the third parties on traffic matters was not supported by the evidence of any qualified road engineer, I agree with them that a number of the assumptions used in the TIA have not been fully justified. In particular, I have doubts concerning the data used to estimate the number of rounds of golf that will be played each year and the consequent number of golf related trips likely to be generated by the proposal. I also have severe misgivings over the low level of car parking suggested by the council’s roads witness as being appropriate for the residential lodges. I am aware that it is proposed to use some form of courtesy coaches, but given that the lodges would be totally dependent on the clubhouse for their catering requirements and the separation distance between them, I consider the figure of 2-3 parking spaces for a building which could accommodate up to 80 residents is inadequate. While the measures in the Green Transport Plan may be well intentioned, I am unconvinced that they will be effective in achieving any meaningful reduction in the number of trips made by private car. In these circumstances, I have doubts that in practice the proposal would operate as planned.

69. I am aware that your client has submitted that the proposed development would assist with the promotion of tourism and the improvement of golf facilities in the area. I also appreciate that because of these benefits you submit that the proposal is supportive of a number of the tourist initiatives being promoted by various bodies, which are designed to increase the number of jobs and generate additional income for the local economy. I can see the logic of such an approach, and would wish whenever possible to support initiatives that provide additional employment. However, I do not consider that it would be in the long-term interests of the local community or the tourist economy to allow a development to proceed which has significant implications for the landscape setting of the town and would erode the amenity of the area. In this context, the importance of the setting of St Andrews and its effect on the character of the historic burgh has been widely recognised. The high amenity of the area and its sensitivity to development were also emphasised by the then Secretary of State in his approval of the Fife Structure Plan in 1994 and in the council’s St Andrews Strategic Study (1998). Furthermore, although the provision of local employment and the possibility of assisting with the diversification of agriculture are important matters, I am not convinced that the present proposal offers the only or the most appropriate way of achieving these objectives. I also note that the benefit of the development to the local residents is restricted by the fact that this is to be a private club. Neither am I persuaded that the development would materially assist in lengthening the tourist season as it is to be marketed primarily for use during the peak summer months. In these circumstances, and given my concerns regarding the proposed scale of the development in a countryside location and its visual impact, I do not consider that the likely economic or social benefits to the community would outweigh the disadvantages arising from the development.

70. I acknowledge that the proposed development would result in the removal of a number of unattractive buildings, the demolition of the water tower, the under-grounding of the electricity supply, an enhancement of the wildlife habitats and the provision of additional footpaths. However, I do not consider that sufficient weight can be attached to these factors to overcome my fundamental concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposal. On the second determining issue I therefore conclude that there are no material considerations that would justify treating the proposal as an appropriate exception to the provisions of the development plan.

71. Turning to the third issue, I note that there has been no objection to the proposal to restore and re-site the category B listed structure, Gregory’s Pillar, to somewhere nearer its original position. I note that the Historic Buildings Inspectorate has indicated that further discussion should take place before any work was undertaken. Given the present condition of the structure and the fact that it has been moved from its proper position in relation to the line of sight to the university buildings in the centre of St Andrews, I find that with regard to the requirements of section 59(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings And Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the listed building.

72. In summary, I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to a number of policies in the approved structure and adopted local plan and that there are no material considerations that would warrant treating the proposal as an exception to the provisions of the statutory development plan. I have taken account of all the other matters raised but find none that outweigh the considerations on which my conclusions are based. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers delegated to me, I therefore dismiss your client’s appeal and refuse to grant outline planning permission for the proposal.

73. This decision is final, subject to the right of any aggrieved person to apply to the Court of Session within 6 weeks of the date of this letter, as conferred by sections 237 and 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997; on any such application the Court may quash the decision if satisfied that it is not within the powers of the Act or that the applicant’s interests have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with any requirement of the Act or of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 or of any orders, regulations or rules made under these Acts.

74. Copies of this letter have been sent to Fife Council, the Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council, Cameron Community Council, the St Andrews Preservation Trust, the St Andrews Green Belt Forum, Councillor Peter Douglas and Mr D Sharkie. Those who made representations on the proposed development have been informed of the decision.

Yours faithfully

I G LUMSDEN
Reporter