Part 4 - Summary of the cases of the third parties

31. On behalf of the Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council it was indicated that the town is under growing pressure from developers. In the community council’s view, the town’s existing physical and social infrastructure cannot keep pace with the recent level of development activity. Firstly, concern was expressed about the capacity of the secondary school to cater for the projected 10% growth in the school roll over the next 10 years. The school is already suffering from overcrowded classrooms and inadequate teaching space. It is believed that the rapid growth in the school population in recent years is indicative of the demographic pressures facing the town. A continuation of these levels of growth is likely to have a detrimental effect on the quality of the education provision. Secondly, within the town’s travel to work area the figure for the number of people presently unemployed is currently around 650. If this figure is compared to the estimated total of some 700 new jobs to be created, both directly and indirectly, by the present proposal and others projects ii-. the area, it is apparent that there will be shortfall in the labour supply. This in turn means that either additional houses will require to be built in the town or people will have to commute from other centres of population such as Dundee. Both of these scenarios are contrary to the conclusions of the St Andrews Strategic Study. Furthermore, a statement from the local health care co-operative indicated that the provision of health facilities in the town was under severe pressure. In order to meet future requirements, a new health centre and a replacement for the local hospital are required.

32. The community council is also concerned that the proposal at Scooniehill would have serious traffic implications for the town and doubts were raised regarding the adequacy of the traffic impact assessment. It is considered that the council’s assessment of the traffic implications and the proposals in green transport plan was superficial and unquestioning. It was noted that the appellant’s transport witness accepted that two elements in the green transport plan were virtually worthless. Surprise was also expressed that a number of assumptions had been made on the basis that international members and their guests, most of who would come from North America, would be prepared to give up the option of using a private car. Further concern about the practicalities of the scheme was raised by the fact that the council’s witness acknowledged that only 2 or 3 parking spaces would be required for each of the proposed residential lodges, which can accommodate up to 40 people. The value of the Green Transport Plan and its ability to reduce traffic to and from the site was also questioned. Particular concern was raised regarding the apparent total absence of any means of enforcing its provisions, apart from encouraging members to follow its guidance.

33. Doubts were also expressed that the assessment did not properly reflect the existing and projected traffic position relative to a number of key junctions in the town. It was considered that the appellant’s analysis had underestimated both the existing level of traffic in the town and its projected rate of growth. In addition, the analysis did not consider the correct points of impact or adequately reflect the additional traffic that would be generated by a number of committed developments, including the Kingask project. Questions were also raised about a number of the assumptions made in the appellant’s transport impact assessment (TIA). It was pointed out that relatively minor adjustments to any one of a number of these basic assumptions would produce a significantly higher number of 2-way trips per day to the development than had been allowed for in the TIA. As a consequence of these reservations, it was considered that the traffic assessment was fundamentally flawed.

34. Lastly, concerns were raised about the visual impact of the proposed clubhouse on the top of the ridge overlooking the town. Although it was appreciated that this was only an outline application and that therefore no detailed drawings of the building had yet been produced, it was considered that the development would materially alter the views of the hillside from the town. While it had been stated that the building would be no higher than the top of the existing farmhouse, its location to the east of that structure on an area where the ground is starting to fall would make the new building much more visible. The existing steading buildings are not highly visible when seen from the town and their removal and replacement with a large clubhouse on this prominent site would represent a significantly more intrusive form of development than presently exists on the site. In the community council’s opinion, this situation was recognised by the appellant’s landscape witness who acknowledged that the building could be made less intrusive if it was sited further to the west and in closer proximity to the existing woodland block. Doubts were also expressed about how all the club and leisure facilities referred to by the appellant could be accommodated within a building of the size proposed. The possibility exists therefore for a larger building to be proposed at the detailed application stage.

35. In support of its objection to the proposal, the St Andrews Preservation Trust gave evidence that there had been intense pressure for a number of golf related developments in and around St Andrews in recent years. Developers would appear to have a perception that there is unlimited potential to attract overseas visitors to the town and to capitalise on its reputation as the ‘home of golf’. However, this view fails to address the reality of the situation. In practice, most golfers come to St Andrews in the expectation that they will be able to play on the Old Course. Unfortunately this possibility is becoming increasingly remote as the Old Course has now reached its capacity. In recent years there have been 2 major hotel extensions in St Andrews, a new links course has been created at Kingsbarns, and a new 200 bed-roomed hotel will shortly open at the Kingask complex. The market is therefore fiercely competitive and there are signs that developers may have misjudged the situation. In this context it is not considered that the Scooniehill proposal would provide anything distinctive in terms of its golf provision, apart from its undesirable exclusivity. It would not provide the golfers with the experience of links golf, it is situated on an exposed and windswept hillside and as a result the golfing season would be curtailed. Because of this it would do little to extend the tourist season.

36. Turning to matters of planning policy, the proposal to develop 80 residential suites is clearly contrary to the terms of NPPG 11 which indicates that a golf course should not provide the justification for approving an associated development if it would not normally be acceptable on its own planning merits. Furthermore, Planning Advice Note 43 (PAN 43) on Golf Courses and Associated Developments indicates that in considering proposals for new courses and associated developments the key issue is whether the golf course is of primary or secondary importance. In the case of this appeal, it is clear that the provision of a major residential complex and the associated facilities are the prime consideration. The PAN also indicates that in a survey of new golf courses with ancillary development fewer than 25% were situated in areas of unmet demand. The advice note suggests that this provides evidence that developer interest lies in the associated facilities rather than the golf course and that such development have been mainly in areas which do not have an over-riding demand for additional courses. It is submitted that this is certainly the case in St Andrews.

37. Reference was also made to the St Andrews Strategic Study produced in 1998. This document recognises that there is a need to contain the spread of the town and concludes that as a way of achieving this, serious consideration should be given to the use of a green belt. More recently, the finalised Structure Plan incorporates a policy requiring the designation of a green belt. It is submitted that the development of the proposed residential units would be a clear breach of green belt policy. The Strategic Study also emphasised that the landscape setting of the town is crucial to its character and must be protected and enhanced. In this context, it is argued that the proposed golf courses would be highly visible from the town, and that the creation of fairways, bunkers and greens on the hillside would detract from the relatively unspoilt and natural appearance of the farmland. The Trust agrees with the council that in terms of the policies in the development plan, the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the landscape and be harmful to the setting of the town. Concerns were also raised about the impact of the scheme on the existing traffic congestion in the town. The centre of the town has a medieval street pattern that is unable to cope with high volumes of traffic. The town has been described by Historic Scotland as the most important small historic burgh in Scotland. Continuing urban growth and an increase in the number of vehicles passing through the town will destroy the character and qualities which attract visitors in the first place.

38. Evidence was also given by the Trust on the economic impact of the proposal. It was indicated that there was no evidence to support the assertion that the development would offer significant tourism benefits to the area. In support of this view, it was stated that no evidence had been provided to substantiate the scale of full-time equivalent (fte) jobs for the on-site and off-site expenditure of visitors. The estimates of the jobs directly attributable to the proposal are therefore considered to be greatly over-stated. Furthermore, the assessment did not use the appropriate methodology for estimating the economic impact of the development. Instead of considering the aggregate effect across the whole of the local economy, the analysis has been confined to looking at the benefits accruing to the proposal itself. This is contrary to the advice of the Scottish Tourist Board on the matter and ignores the displacement effects on existing providers in the area. Given the nature of the market in St Andrews and the constraints on the availability of its major attraction (the Old Course), such displacement effects are believed to be even greater than is normal. It was considered that the developer had failed to demonstrate how the proposal would generate substantial additional value in terms of new golf tourism to the area, rather than relying on capturing part of the existing market. Consequently, it was submitted that it would be inappropriate to rely on the argument that the alleged economic benefits of the proposal are sufficient to outweigh those factors which militate against the proposal on other grounds. It was argued that the development would only have a marginal economic impact on the local economy.

39. On behalf of the St Andrews Green Belt Forum it was indicated that it endorsed many of the arguments put forward by the Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council and the Preservation Trust. The Forum is concerned about the apparently relentless growth of the town. As a consequence of the continuing pressure for expansion, parts of the rural hinterland and the landscape setting of the town are under threat from developments which seek to capitalise on the name of St Andrews and its golfing legacy. In order to try to control the pressures for development and protect the historic setting of St Andrews, the Forum has co-ordinated the campaign for the designation of a green belt round the town. With regard to the proposal at appeal, the Forum’s objection relates not only to the golf courses but to the extent of the associated built development. The proposal to erect a leisure centre and a large number of residential units are considered to be incompatible with the objectives of the green belt. It is also considered that such built developments would be contrary to (a) the policies in ‘the development plan regarding the need to protect the countryside and the landscape quality in AGLVs; (b) the conclusions of the St Andrews Strategic Study Landscape Assessment; (c) the findings of the report on ‘A Green Belt for St Andrews’; (d) the recommendations in the Fife Landscape Character Assessment; and (e) the conclusions of the St Andrews Strategic Study. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the developments would be contrary to the recent decision by Fife Council to approve the finalised Structure Plan Written Statement which contains a specific recognition in policy of the need for a green belt round the town. All these documents recognise the importance and uniqueness of the town’s landscape setting to its the character. The Forum submits that this landscape setting should be seen as a finite resource of immeasurable value to the town.

40. In these circumstances, it is argued that any proposals for development within the proposed green belt should reflect the aims of such a designation, i.e. (i) to provide recreational opportunities, and (ii) to maintain the landscape setting of St Andrews. In relation to the first of these matters, while it is acknowledged that golf courses can be an appropriate form of development in a green belt, the fact that there will be no provision for ordinary members of the public to play the courses is not consistent with the advice PAN 43. In addition, although the rights-of-way through the site are to be maintained, access to this large area of countryside will effectively be restricted to a few club members who have no ties or links with the town.

41. On the second matter, it is submitted that there are two main areas of concern. Firstly, there is the visual impact of the golf courses on the north-facing slope which lies immediately to the south of the town. When viewed from the town, the golf courses would be conspicuous and they would represent an artificial element in what presently appears as a ‘natural’ landscape. Secondly, the building of 80 residential suites on the southern slopes of the site constitutes a very substantial development that is comparable to a large 320-bed hotel and correspond to a ‘new settlement’ in the countryside. In this respect the proposed development is clearly contrary to the guidance contained in NPPG 11. In addition, although this area is not directly in view from the town, the development would be visible and intrusive in this open landscape when seen from the Grange Road and the A915. The views of St Andrews from these points are important and form part of its landscape setting.

42. Lastly, concern was expressed about the limited amount of information that has been made available regarding this outline application. This makes it virtually impossible to properly assess what the environmental implications of the development will be and for the public to make any kind of informed response to the proposal. Recent experience suggests that what will actually be built would be very different to the scheme currently under consideration. In this particular case, it emerged during the inquiry that the residential suites would not be provided with self-catering facilities. Consequently, the clubhouse would have to provide a dining area capable of handling up to 320 members. This suggests that the building would have to be of a very considerable size and may not be of the scale shown on the indicative plans.

43. Cameron Community Council, expressed its support for the proposal. In explanation of this position it was indicated that the area in which the proposed development would be sited is almost entirely dependent on agriculture for employment. Given the dramatic fall in the number of people employed in agriculture over the last few decades and the difficulties currently facing farmers, the proposed development offers the prospect of much needed employment for local people. During the construction phase, the work-force would also generate a short demand for housing and increase the use of local recreational facilities. This would be a welcome source of additional income in the area. The availability to local people of improved leisure and recreation facilities within the clubhouse would also be beneficial. The upgrading of the rights-of-way and the provision of the new paths is a further positive benefit of the scheme. The problems associated with an increase in traffic arising from the development were considered to be overstated. In any event, the inconvenience likely to be caused would be outweighed by the economic benefits arising from the proposal.

44. Councillor Peter Douglas, the local member for the area, gave evidence in favour of the proposal. In his evidence it was stated that he considered the site to be ideal for the purpose. It was located close to St Andrews but most of the land was scarcely visible from the town. Furthermore with the continuing decline of agriculture, there is a need to encourage diversification in rural areas. The development of 2 golf courses on the site would also secure a green hinterland for the town. The vital role of tourism in the local economy was emphasised and it was argued that the project would lead to the creation of additional jobs and improved facilities. It would therefore be supportive of efforts to promote tourism in both St Andrews and other parts of Fife. Reference was made to the fact that parts of the site required to be pumped to ensure proper drainage. The creation of the loch would remove the continuing need for artificial drainage and the resultant water features would be an environmental asset. In terms of the AGLV designation, it is important to remember that the appearance of the land is a result of agricultural activities over the years. It is not a natural landscape and with the increasing ‘abandonment’ of the land, through set-aside arrangements, the appearance of the site is likely to change and become less attractive. It costs money to keep up the appearance of the countryside and if there is no money in agriculture the question arises as to how the land is to be maintained. While the position of relative ‘newcomers’ who wish to protect the landscape quality of the area is understood this must be balanced against the views of those living and working in the area who are all supportive of the development.

45. Mr Sharkie, the owner of Lambieletham Crossing Cottage, which is located within the appeal site, gave evidence in support of the principle of the development. However, during the inquiry it became clear that Mr Sharkie was opposed to the location of the proposed access road to the residential units, which is shown on the indicative plans as passing close to his house. It was explained that in terms of the concept of the development, Mr Sharkie had concluded that it made economic sense with benefits for the businesses and residents of the area. The proposal was also considered to be consistent with the Scottish Tourist Board’s strategy for the development of golf related tourism and the council’s policies as set out in the Fife Structure Plan and the St Andrews Local Plan. In particular, he did not accept that the proposed development would adversely affect the appearance of the AGLV or that it would prejudice the possibility of designating a green belt around the town. The modern farm buildings have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the site and their removal would serve to enhance the amenity of the area. The concerns relating to the impact of traffic from the proposal on St Andrews were also believed to be exaggerated. Following a consideration of traffic movement in the town, Mr Sharkie considered that the congestion problems related to the existing pattern of vehicle circulation and not to the new developments such as Scooniehill. It was pointed out that the existing farming enterprise at Scooniehill, involving the movement of grain and potatoes, created a significant amount of traffic. Consequently, it was only the net effect on traffic flows which is relevant to an assessment of the impact of this proposal.