Part 3 - Summary of the case for the council

21. In support of its position the council stated that the proposal did not comply with the provisions of the development plan. Reference was made to statements in the strategy section of the structure plan which indicate that the overall approach is to try to ensure that the development of St Andrews occurs in a controlled and gradual way, taking account of the considerable environmental constraints. The constraints identified include the need to conserve the high quality environment, the landscape and setting of the town, and to protect those areas of prime quality agricultural land. The strategy acknowledges that there is a need to ensure the continuing economic vitality of the area and to development tourism, but this is to be achieved in a way which ensures the town’s environment is safeguarded. The heritage and visual attractions of the area, particularly its high quality landscape setting, are recognised as being vital to its attractiveness to tourists. The need to protect these resources will therefore be an important consideration in assessing the acceptability or otherwise of proposals for new development.

22. These overall statements on the strategy for the development of the town are supported by a number of policies in both the structure and local plans. In this context, reference was made to Policy E11 in the structure plan which recognises that there is a need to protect and enhance those areas of high quality landscape. Consequently, the structure plan does not support development within Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLVs) which would have a detrimental visual impact. It is pointed out that the greater part of the appeal site lies within an area designated as an AGLV. In the council’s opinion, the location of the proposed clubhouse on the top of the ridge overlooking the town would have a detrimental impact on the visual appearance of the landscape. It is considered that the building would be located in a conspicuous position that is clearly visible from the town and that it would adversely affect the appearance of this part of the AGLV. It is noted that the clubhouse would be situated in an area identified in the Landscape Assessment Study of St Andrews as forming part of the ‘Open Coastal Hills’. The study concluded that in landscape terms this area had no capacity to accommodate development. The council concludes that the siting of the clubhouse in this location would be visually intrusive and detrimental to the landscape setting of the town. As such it would be contrary to Policy E11 in the structure plan.

23. Initially the council expressed concerns that the creation of golf courses on the north facing slope overlooking the town would also have an adverse impact on the landscape. However, in cross-examination it was accepted that the golf courses would be acceptable in visual terms. The council did express concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposal when viewed from the A915 as St Andrews is approached from the south. While it was accepted that the removal of the existing steading buildings at Scooniehill may be beneficial in visual terms, the council believes that the erection of the substantial clubhouse building and the residential lodges would have a detrimental impact on the open appearance of the landscape in the southern part of the site. Although the lodges would be sited just outwith the AGLV, they would be visible from both the A915 and Grange Road. It was noted that the appellant accepted that the landscape planting to reduce the visual impact of these buildings would take some 10 to 15 years to provide an effective screen.

24. Turning to structure plan Policy E12, which deals with development in the countryside, this indicates that development outwith the urban envelopes will not be supported unless it is related to rural activities such as mineral extraction, agriculture, forestry or tourist/recreational uses appropriate to a rural setting. While a golf course with a modestly sized clubhouse facility may be appropriate in the countryside, this is not what is being proposed at Scooniehill. The present proposal is for a private golf club with an extensive clubhouse, containing leisure and fitness facilities, together with the provision of residential accommodation for up to 320 members and their guests. The council does not accept that the scale of development proposed is appropriate or necessary in a countryside location. The council believes that the presumption in favour of tourist projects set out in Policy ED8 and the general encouragement given to the development of tourism by Policy ED9 in the structure plan do not apply in this case. This is because the development is contrary to the plan’s policies which deal with the protection of the environment. In the council’s opinion, in balancing the policies on economic development against those relating to environmental protection, the detrimental visual impact of the proposals on the landscape outweighs any possible economic benefits that might arise.

25. In terms of structure plan Policy ED13, which contains a presumption against development that would permanently remove or reduce the quality of prime quality agricultural land, the council indicates that the appeal site is comprised predominantly of prime quality agricultural land (Class 2 and Class 3.1 land). Although it is acknowledged that the use of the land for the golf courses is reversible, the proposal also involve the use of approximately 10 ha of prime quality land for access roads, car parks, the water features and the residential lodges. All of these forms of development are considered to be irreversible. Consequently, an area of prime quality land would be permanently lost and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ED13.

26. The council points out that the policies in the adopted St Andrews Area Local Plan basically mirror those in the approved structure plan. Consequently, for the reasons set out above, as the appeal site lies within an area defined in the local plan as ‘countryside’ the proposal would be contrary to Policies E13 and E15 (on new development in the countryside), and Policy E20 which encourages outdoor activities in the countryside, provided they do not conflict with other local plan polices. Furthermore, as it is considered the development would erode the attractiveness of the rural landscape and lead to the permanent loss of prime quality land, the development would not be consistent with Policy ED6 (which deals with the improvement of tourist facilities), Policy ED9 (the protection of prime quality agricultural land) and Policy E16 (on AGLVs). The council therefore submits that the proposal is also contrary to the policies in the adopted local plan.

27. Turning to the finalised Draft Fife Structure Plan, it was indicated that during the course of the inquiry the final modifications to this document had been ratified by the appropriate council committee. The plan will now be submitted to Scottish Ministers for approval. The draft structure plan includes Policy SS7 which requires inter alia that the local plan shall identify a green belt to the north, west and south of St Andrews to preserve existing views to and from the historic core of the town and prevent urban expansion. Within the proposed green belt there will be a presumption against all development where there is intervisibility between the development site and the historic core of the town unless the proposal would result in an enhancement to existing views or in no material alteration to them. Development proposals likely to prejudice the designation process will be considered to be premature. It was indicated that the green belt concept had its origins in the modifications made in 1994 by the then Secretary of State to the approved structure plan. The decision letter on the structure plan recognised the pressures facing St Andrews and the sensitivity of the area to development. It therefore required the council to undertake a strategic study of the longer term development of the town. The proposal to designate a green belt round the town is in accord with the recommendations contained in the Landscape Assessment Study of St Andrews and the conclusions of the St Andrews Strategic Study, which were both produced in response to this requirement. Although it is acknowledged that the appeal site is not presently within the green belt, the council believes that the situation in St Andrews so clearly comply with the criteria for designation in Circular 24/1985 that there is a strong possibility that in the near future it will be. In these circumstances, the council submits that the development would be contrary to Policy SS7 in the draft structure plan and that a decision on the proposal is premature pending the confirmation of the green belt and its precise boundaries.

28. The council also states that the policies in the draft structure plan relating to tourist proposals (E7), development in AGLVs (N1), and the protection of prime quality agricultural land (N2) remain broadly similar to those in the approved structure plan. For the reasons set out above the council believes that the proposal at appeal is contrary to these policies. It is also considered that the proposal does not comply with the terms of Policy C5 on golf courses because the associated facilities and residential accommodation exceed what is required to play golf.

29. With regard to the guidance in the various National Planning Policy Guidelines (NPPGs) which were referred to at the inquiry, the council indicates that NPPG1 recognises the need to balance the different objectives of promoting economic development and protecting the natural environment. The improvements to public access to the countryside and the enhancement of the bio-diversity of the site which would be brought about by the development are acknowledged as being in line with the provisions of NPPG11. However, this NPPG also indicates that the development of golf courses can give rise to significant impacts on the natural environment. Furthermore, it makes it clear that associated development must be considered on their own planning merits in land use terms. Accordingly, councils are urged to refuse planning applications for development associated with a golf course if the development would not be acceptable in its own right. In terms of this appeal, the council does not accept that the golf courses provide the justification for allowing such a large clubhouse or the accommodation units at the scale proposed.

30. The council also expressed concerns that the proposal would exacerbate the existing problems of traffic congestion in the town, particularly during the summer months. A number of the assumptions in the Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) produced by the appellant were challenged. The main points raised were that: the projected traffic flows were too low; the decision to analyse the impact of the development only on the access point to the site was inadequate to properly assess the proposal; the figures used for the number of trips generated by the scheme had been underestimated; and, lastly the estimated number of vehicles visiting the site during the construction phase was too low. In short, it was indicated that the councillors and local residents do not believe that the number of trips predicted to arise from the development would be as low as stated in the TIA. Although the council’s transportation witness stated that provided the development worked as projected it would not cause any significant additional traffic congestion, the concern was that if it did not operate as planned it would give rise to serious traffic difficulties in St Andrews.