|
Scooniehill Golf and Leisure Complex - Background
Info Public Local Inquiry - Statements from witnesses called to speak at the Inquiry more Scooniehill Info back to Scooniehill News Each party to the Inquiry called witnesses, who provided precognitions - written statements of evidence. All documentation associated with the Inquiry is in the public domain, and Inquiry papers indicated that copies of the main documents should be available in the public library. For those having difficulty in sourcing these documents, here are copies of the key precognitions. (Some sections which may be of relevance to residents of Kingsbarns, be they golfers or non-golfers, are emphasised in bold print - for easy identification). The appellants, The International Golf Club of St Andrews
Limited, used several witnesses when presenting their case at the Inquiry.
Witnesses dealt with issues such as (a) the background of the company and the
proposal; (b) landscape issues; (c) traffic considerations; and (d) planning
policy. Included here is the overall 'company' statement, from the chairman,
Mr FGS Dalgarno. Fife Council, when presenting their case in support
of refusal, were unable to call on evidence from their own planning experts -
all of whom had recommended conditional approval. Support for the scheme came from the elected member for the area, Councillor Peter Douglas, and from Cameron Community Council. Included here is the statement from Councillor Peter Douglas. Objectors included local bodies such as the community council and preservation trust, and national groups such as Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage. Included here is the statement from Tony Jackson - an assessment of the proposals economic impact on St Andrews. The International Golf Club of St Andrews Ltd. Precognition of FGS Dalgarno CA, LLB Proposed Golf Development, Scooniehill Farm, St Andrews 1. PERSONAL OVERVIEW 1.1 I am Frederick Dalgarno. I trained as a lawyer and as an accountant, and the bulk of my career has been spent in investment management and venture capital. I have been a Director of or been involved closely with a number of property companies. Accordingly, I have considerable experience of development projects, many of them substantially larger in cost and indeed more complex than that proposed at Scooniehill. 1.2 I am a keen golfer and am a member of both the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St.Andrews and Royal Aberdeen Golf Club. It was through my affection for golf that I met the group of enthusiasts whose vision the Scooniehill project is and, shortly thereafter, I was invited to become Chairman of the development company, The International Golf Club of St.Andrews Limited, which is registered in Scotland and was incorporated specifically for the purpose of undertaking the project. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The idea for the Scooniehill proposals stems from studies into the demand in the USA for membership of Scottish golf clubs. 2.2 Following widespread market research, it was ascertained that there is a significant demand, particularly from overseas for Membership of a club located at St.Andrews which will allow Members and their families/guests to reside at the club and enjoy the full range of leisure facilities to which they are accustomed. 2.3 Throughout the USA, many golf clubs, particularly the newer proprietary ones, provide accommodation and a comprehensive range of leisure facilities. This is to some extent a consequence of the USA being such a vast country. Most golfers there think nothing of travelling hundreds or indeed thousands of miles to play at their chosen clubs and whilst there, require comfortable accommodation and a gymnasium/pool. 2.4 On-site accommodation is considered a priority and will permit a higher degree of security whilst allowing Members and their guests a greater opportunity to mix with their peers. It has the added advantage of reducing the need to drive in a foreign country, i.e. ‘on the wrong side of the road’. 2.5 The results of the aforementioned market research, ref 2.1, are endorsed by a report entitled “The Home of Golf: The Role of St.Andrews in Scottish Golf Tourism” (Document IGC28) 2.6 The authors concluded, “Scotland is widely accepted as the country where golf took root and developed. The town of St.Andrews is at the heart of Scottish and international golf, being home to the Old Course and The Royal and Ancient Golf Club. St.Andrews presents Scottish tourism with a strong image world-wide and a unique selling point to promote golf tourism to the world.” 2.7 Table 80.4 in the report reveals that 65% of visitors were attracted by the prospect of playing golf in St.Andrews and 41% by the possibility of playing the Old Course. 2.8 Our market research also revealed that those considering purchasing Membership expected the fees to reflect a top quality facility and a high level of service. Entry fees in excess of £100,000 in the USA are commonplace. Indeed, in the UK some entry fees are much higher than proposed at Scooniehill, e.g. £125,000 at the K.Club, £45,000 at The Buckinghamshire, and £37,000 at Wisely Golf Club. 2.9 Americans paying high entry fee levels are accustomed also to paying high annual fees, which often exceed £15,000. They expect however that virtually all arrangements will be made on their behalf. Accordingly, airport pick-up and drop-off, securing tee-times and making the necessary travel arrangements to and from requested courses, organising group visits to places of interest and securing theatre tickets would all have to be arranged in advance by Club staff. 2.10 Since it is very likely that many Members will wish to extend their stay in Scotland, the Club’s concierge managers will assist in making any arrangements. 2.11 The achievement of membership sales is of fundamental importance, in which context it is important to understand that the location of St.Andrews is absolutely vital to the success of this project. Further results of the market research indicated clearly that Membership of a private club offering high quality facilities and service at “The Home of Golf” was perceived as a very desirable asset in the eyes of golfers world-wide. 2.12 Location elsewhere in Scotland of the type of club envisaged simply would not generate the necessary immediate impact to realise the membership numbers required. 2.13 The success of the overseas Membership schemes at clubs which provide a degree of similarity such as Loch Lomond Golf Club and The Carnegie Club, at Skibo Castle, neither of which carries the prestige, range of benefits, level of service, and attraction of St.Andrews in global terms, is a significant measure of current international demand. 2.14 An added attraction of Membership of a private, residential golf club in St Andrews is the opportunity to play the many other fine courses in the area. 3. THE PROPOSAL 3.1 The project, which will be built and maintained to the highest standards, will comprise a clubhouse with leisure facilities, two 18 hole courses and up to 8 lodges providing accommodation for Members and their guests. The lodges will be built in phases according to membership sales and Member demand. 3.2 A membership package, comprising International and National Member categories, has been created. 3.3 The initial entry fee for International Membership, which will be transferable, is projected at £18,000, and includes full membership privileges for the Member’s spouse/partner. 3.4 International Membership will permit preference in respect of the reservation of tee-times, entitlement to invite guests to reside at the Club, the right to utilise a suite for a week’s accommodation in the period May to September each year, and the right to transfer the accommodation benefit in the event the Member is unable to visit the Club in any year. 3.5 International Members will be charged an annual fee projected initially at £1,000. 3.6 Every time the accommodation is utilised, a supplementary fee will be charged based on the number of people in each Member group. The supplementary fee charged per head will include all transportation costs, meals, and whatever costs are incurred in meeting each individual’s requirements. 3.7 The category of National Membership is only available to residents of the UK, but, priority for membership will be enjoyed by those who reside in the surrounding area. The non-transferable entry fee is significantly lower and is projected initially at £1,500. The initial annual fee is estimated at £750. 3.8 National Members will not enjoy playing privileges for their spouses/partners nor will they enjoy the right to utilise the accommodation. However, all Members, including National members and their friends will be encouraged through attractively priced packages to utilise the accommodation during the period October to the end of April, excluding the six weeks which will be set aside in January and February for maintenance and repairs / improvements. 3.9 These packages will help to maintain employment levels and lengthen the tourist season. 3.10 The development will clearly provide local people with alternative golfing and leisure club facilities, available through Membership. 3.11 As I indicated at paragraph 2.14 above, an added attraction of Membership is the obvious opportunities to play the many fine courses in the area. To this end, and following informal discussions with a number of clubs including Lundin Links, Scotscraig, Ladybank, Drumoig, The Dukes and in particular with David Scott, Director of Golf at Kingsbarns, we propose to create a Kingdom Golf Invitation. Whilst adding to the variety of courses available for our Members’ play, this will produce additional income for participating clubs which otherwise would not be enjoyed. The Kingdom Golf Invitation will entail inter-club agreements, preplanned to cover the golfing season whereby, with the exception of specific days to avoid medals and other outings, every Tuesday-Friday, minibuses will depart Scooniehill at specific times to take member groups to other courses in Fife. 3.12 A project team has been established and currently comprises; Halliday Fraser Munro - Architects 4. RISK AND VIABILITY 4.1 The development company is a new company, incorporated solely for the purpose - what is known as a Single Purpose Vehicle. This is a very common way of undertaking a project so that funders and investors can be assured that the company has not traded previously and has no existing liabilities. Discussions are held with banks and investors while the project is being put together but the necessary funding is not secured until the final decision with regard to planning is received. 4.2 I myself have negotiated with several main sources of funding for the Scooniehill project, including meetings held as recently as October 26th and 30th in Toronto and New York, and am in no doubt whatsoever that once planning permission is granted, the company will secure the required funding to undertake the project. 4.3 Unlike the new £9m Gateway Centre development, which was placed into receivership before opening, no work will commence on site until a minimum of £7m has been raised from membership sales or 300 individual International Memberships have been sold, whichever is the earliest. This amount will underwrite a level of borrowing, which will ensure the financing of the first phase. On the basis of having achieved £7m in sales, one can justifiably assume that sales will continue, the receipts from which will finance further construction phases. 4.4 As mentioned earlier, much of my career has been in venture capital, including a period as Director in charge of Venture Capital at Murray Johnstone Limited, one of the largest providers of such funds in Scotland. As a result, I am thoroughly familiar with risk factors and of the consequences of failure. 4.5 This application has cost a sum well in excess of £250,000 to date. Investment of that magnitude is a clear demonstration of our confidence, and I trust that, coupled with the undertaking not to commence on site until the minimum sales target has been achieved, any fears regarding risk and viability will be alleviated. 5. ECONOMIC BENEFITS Employment 5.1 The project will create major employment opportunities in the area during both the construction period and when fully operational. 5.2 With regard to the construction phase, we consulted three reputable firms, namely Trentham, Torith, and Morrison Construction. Accordingly, we can predict with some confidence that some 120 persons will be employed in this activity. We hope that many will be recruited from the St.Andrews area. 5.3 As far as operation of the facility is concerned, we consulted Macdonald Hotels plc, the largest Scottish company in the hospitality sector to ascertain the likely employment numbers in mature operation and were advised that initially, the development would provide 57 full time equivalent jobs, and when fully completed, up to 80 full time and 54 part time jobs, or 107 full time equivalent jobs. While the number of part time jobs may appear to be large, this may well suit the local student population or parents who wish to work only when their children are at school. We hope to recruit most of these positions from the St.Andrews area. 5.4 The project will create an excellent opportunity for people wishing to make a career in the leisure industry. Above all, it will be of not inconsiderable benefit to the local economy in creating significant employment with total staff annual remuneration exceeding £1.6m. Spending 5.5 The generation of jobs will in turn have a substantial beneficial multiplier effect on the local economy as much of the salaries will be spent in local shops, bars, restaurants etc. 5.6 Golf visitor spending in St.Andrews was investigated in the report entitled “The Home of Golf: The Role of St.Andrews in Scottish Golf Tourism (Document IGC28). The report can only be used for guidance, and although it was ascertained that North American visitors spent a total average of £240 per day, (golf, accommodation and other spending) we have conservatively estimated the off-site spend at under £60 per day or £400 per visitor per week in 2004, increasing by 3% per annum thereafter. Accordingly, we have projected an off-site visitor spend of £2m from 5,000 visitors in 2004, rising to £5.12m from 9,000 visitors in 2013. 5.7 This will create or help to secure additional jobs. Accordingly, we have calculated conservatively that on the basis of each £35,000 of visitor spend creating one full time equivalent job, (the STB assumes £31,000) some 55 new jobs will be created in the short-term, rising to some 112 jobs in the longer-term. 5.8 The Club will, of course, require to purchase goods and services, the value of which we calculate as approximately £1 .5m per annum. This is another significant potential economic benefit to local traders and tradesmen. Additionality 5.9 Additionality is another factor to be considered when assessing the economic benefit which any project brings to an area. On the assumption that each visitor will play three rounds per week elsewhere, it is likely that courses throughout Fife will benefit by 15,000 rounds in 2004 rising to a peak of 27,000 by 2013. In financial terms, and out of the sums projected in 5.6, this equates to added revenue of some £500,000 to £1m per annum for Kingdom of Fife golf clubs. 5.10 Furthermore, many visitors will wish to visit places of interest, such as Falkland Palace, Kelly Castle, Abbot House, and Balbirnie Park, to name but a few. Prearranged trips to such places will be organised and visitors may select from the range of destinations which will be visited throughout each week. Travel will be in minibuses laid on specifically for the purpose. It is apparent therefore that the project will bring considerable benefits to the tourism industry in Fife. 5.11 In addition, the Scottish Tourist Industry will also benefit as many visitors will wish to extend their vacation and visit other places throughout Scotland, a trend which was also referred to in Document 1GG28. Displacement 5.12 Of importance in appraisal of economic impact is the question of displacement, and several factors are of relevance in this case. First, the club is a flagship development targeting a niche market of mainly visitors from overseas. Second, the Club does not replicate an existing facility, and third, it will not be accessible to non-members. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that the development will attract additional golfing visitors looking for this type of facility, rather than displace visitors from other golf courses in the area. Support from Fife Enterprise and Council Officers 5.13 The results of the appraisal of economic benefits produced in the application were examined and supported by both Fife Council’s Economic Development Department and Fife Enterprise whose senior tourism executive stated in a letter of February 22nd 2000, “ Golf provision in Fife is a key part of the tourism infrastructure. Projects that welcome visiting golfers and provide a high quality visitor experience would concur with Fife Enterprise’s aspirations for the golf sector.” (Document IGC 29) 5.14 Again, in the July 1999 Overview, produced by the Head of Planning, (Document FC5) on page 12, paragraph 2.9, it is written, “Due to the St.Andrews brand name, golf-based international and domestic tourism play a vital role in Fife Tourism and in the Fife economy.” 5.15 These statements fully endorse the economic benefits of the proposals and the positive impact that the development of a private club, such as that proposed at Scooniehill, can bring. 6. PAY AND PLAY 6.1 The lack of pay-and-play was also documented as a reason for refusal, despite the fact that pay-and-play at Scooniehill would increase traffic flow which is an area of concern. 6.2 It is important to note that pay-and-play does not mean that access to a particular course is readily available, nor does it imply low cost. For example, access to the Old Course is by ballot, while the cost of one round at both the Old Course and Kingsbarns is £85, at The Kings and Queens Courses at Gleneagles is £100, at Carnoustie Championship is £80 and at the Dukes is £55. 6.3 According to the July 1999 Overview, on page 10, para 2.4, Fife currently has 42 courses representing 18 holes per 8,800 people, a level of provision significantly higher than in Scotland generally. 6.4 People in the St.Andrews area enjoy a high level of provision of golf courses. Excluding the ‘9 hole’, Balgove course on the links, and allowing for a population of 20,000 playing on the five ‘18 hole’ courses on the links, one at each of Drumoig, Craigtoun, Kingsbarns, and St.Michaels plus one pay-and-play course to be opened at Kingask, the provision represents 18 holes per 2,000 people. 6.5 It was reported in the Scotsman of February 5 2000, (Document ICC 32) that the Links Trust had drawn up plans to add a seventh golf course and it was hoped that the project will be completed and open to the public by 2005. In May, an application was lodged to create a new course between Strathtyrum Home Farm and Easter Kincaple Farm (Document 1GC27). There is reportedly interest in a total of two more courses at Craigtoun and Feddinch. Consequently, St.Andrews is likely to have more pay and play courses per head of population than anywhere in the world. Any more pay-and-play facilities are bound to increase competition, which may result in hardship for some. 6.6 Members at Scooniehill will wish to play many of the courses in Fife thus bringing additional revenues to them. This benefit has been acknowledged. The East Area Planning Service Team Leader, Nick Brian, was quoted in the St.Andrews Citizen of June 2nd 2000, “There would be spin-off for pay-as-you-play courses as the visitors to Scooniehill tried out the local courses.” (Document IGC26) 6.7 It is our contention that there is no need and no justification for another two courses to compete in this market segment. 7. TOURISM AND GOLF 7.1 Finally, 1 must draw attention to the value of the proposed Club in the context of the Scottish Tourist Industry, (apart from the obvious benefit mentioned previously from members and their guests extending their stay in Scotland by travelling to other areas) 7.2 On October 13th, 1999, the Scotsman reported details of a new tourism drive (Document ICC 24). Henry McLeish, Scotland’s First Minister, declared that “golf was identified as the key to reversing Scotland’s declining international tourism industry”. He announced a campaign to promote the sport to visitors in an attempt to reverse Scotland’s fortunes and that he had asked the Scottish Tourist Board to prepare proposals to develop golf tourism and to implement them quickly. 7.3 He saw golf as a key element in Scotland’s new tourist strategy and stated “Scotland is renowned across the world as the “Home of Golf’. No other nation has that concept they can sell”. 7.4 On April 3 2000, at a meeting in the Rusack’s Hotel, St.Andrews he stated “There has never been a better time to celebrate golf in Scotland. Interest in golf is booming world-wide with 1000 new courses being built each year. Scotland should tap into this potential and exploit our natural advantages. In St.Andrews we have a setting that is envied throughout the world and it is a tremendous asset. We must identify ways in which we can harness the burgeoning interest in golf and create golf products that our visitors want”. (Document IGC25) 7.5 As a company, we believe that St.Andrews International Golf Club is exactly the type of innovative, high quality product, which the Scottish Executive is encouraging. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 We have researched successful ‘golf and country clubs’ around the world and have identified ways of attracting visitors. Modern golf-related developments must cater for more than just golf because the prospective member requires comprehensive facilities of the highest standard. 8.2 Other details of the proposal will be expanded upon by later witnesses. 8.3 I respectfully request that you approve the proposals and grant planning permission. PRECOGNITION OF COUNCILLOR FRANCES M MELVILLE RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AT SCOONIEHILL, BY ST. ANDREWS My name is Frances Melville and I am the Councillor for St. Andrews West and Strathkinness. I have represented St. Andrews West since 1990 and St. Andrews West and Strathkinness since 1995 following boundary changes. I am also Chairman of the East Area Development Committee and am making this representation on behalf of one of my Fife Council colleagues, St. Andrews Councillor - Councillor Jane Hunter-Blair who represents St. Andrews Central and who cannot appear before the Inquiry. I have read the Statement by the Fife Council in this planning appeal, reference P/PPA/250/277 and give my total support to the document. I chaired the Departure Hearing for the Scooniehill application and the subsequent East Area Development Committee which on 30 May 2000 refused the application following a vote. I supported both Councillors Hunter-Blair and Hill in refusing this application. My main reasons for opposing this proposed development are as follows: 1. That it is premature pending consideration by the Council in the Structure Plan process of a green belt for St. Andrews. 2. The proposal is contrary to the development plan as set out in the Structure Plan and the St. Andrews Area Local Plan with regard to development in the countryside and AGLV. 3. The proposed development is contrary to the Council’s Guidelines for Golf Courses and Associated Development in that there is no pay and play element. 4. There would be an adverse effect on the level of traffic and the development would generate unacceptable levels of construction traffic on the public roads. 1. Structure Plan Process - Green Belt In 1992 during his consideration of the Fife Structure Plan the then Secretary of State for Scotland asked Fife Regional Council and North East Fife District Council to undertake a study for St. Andrews on Strategic Issues as he recognised the immense development pressures in the future years that would be put on the town. Little did we realise then just what those pressures would be in nine years. That Strategic Issues report evolved into the St. Andrews Strategic Study which was finally concluded after a very lengthy and detailed consultative process in 1998. After a huge response, over 900 replies from the consultation exercise, the conclusions which were well documented were that:- • St. Andrews is at its landscape capacity and no major expansion should take place • The landscape setting of St. Andrews is crucial to its character and must be protected and enhanced. • There is no need to contain the spread if the town and a green belt must be seriously considered as a way of achieving this. • The quality of the town’s environment is under threat from traffic congestion • Tourism is one of the mainstays of the local economy but it must be managed in a sustainable way and that includes benefits from residents and local businesses. • The tourism strategy and transportation plan provide ways of addressing the tourism and traffic issues raised through the Study in an integrated way. Steps should be taken to implement these strategies and to monitor and review them in consultation with the community. In 1998 the Strategic Study was approved by Fife Council as a material consideration for the determination of planning applications. At the end of last year, the Review of the Structure Plan began and a Consultative Written Statement was drafted for consultation. I maintain that this application is premature pending the outcome of the Structure Plan Review. Since the application under appeal has been determined, there have been several changes to the Consultative Written Statement of the Structure Plan. The Consultative Written Statement did not include a green belt for the town. After the publication of the Consultative Written Statement in March of this year, over 500 responses from the public and other organisations were received with over half of them asking for green belt status to be included in the Structure Plan. There were also nearly 1000 responses to the St. Andrews Strategic Study with over 50% of those also asking for green belt status. The Finalised Fife Structure Plan has very recently been prepared by the Head of Planning and Building Control and is due to be considered by the three Area Development Committees in November and finally by the Strategic Development Committee for approval on 27 November 2000. The Council has acknowledged all the representations over the years pleading for green belt status and the Finalised Plan proposes to designate green belt to the north (the Links) and the south of St. Andrews and also the south-west of Dunfermline. The purpose of this is to preserve existing views to and from the historic cores and prevent urban expansion. The Finalised Plan states that the green belt boundaries should be identified in Local Plans and further that development proposals likely to prejudice this process will be considered premature. These development proposals if approved now will prejudice this process and this application is accordingly premature. The town and its neighbouring villages have never experienced such an unprecedented onslaught of large commercial enterprise applications as in the last few years and I maintain that for all the above statements contained in the Strategic Study, development would have an adverse effect on the town. 2. Development in the Countryside and the Area of Great Landscape Value The development site lies within the countryside and partly in an Area of Great Landscape Value. The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of both the Fife Structure Plan and St. Andrews Area Local Plan regarding development in the countryside and in Areas of Great Landscape Value. In particular, it is contrary to Policy E11 of the Structure Plan as it would have a detrimental visual effect on the landscape. The site viewed from St. Andrews is generally open farmland. The character of this area is bound to change if a golf course is created on this area. However well the golf course is designed, it will not look like open farmland. I have not seen any details as to how greens, tees, fairways and rough of a golf course can be created on this land without changing the character of the area when viewed from St. Andrews. Further, the clubhouse proposed to be created on the ridge will be a significant building. Even though it is proposed to screen this partly with tree planting, any planting will take many years to be established. In any event, I understand that it is intended that the clubhouse will not be totally screened from the town so that members of the club do have a view of the town from the clubhouse. This is no doubt to make it more attractive to members. It will, however, not make it attractive from the town. I am also concerned as to the views of the development from the A915 road and Grange Road. The countryside in this area is open and the views are particularly sensitive. These views are going to be affected by sight of the clubhouse on the ridge and also of the lodges. No evidence was presented to the Committee as to how these lodges could be designed and fitted into the landscape. I am also of the view that the proposal is contrary to Policy E12 of the Structure Plan relating to development outwith urban envelopes. It is also contrary to Policy E13 of the Local Plan relating to development in the countryside. Whilst it could be argued that golf courses provide a green belt area, it is the associated buildings that go with these applications which continue to give cause for concern. It is not necessary for outdoor recreation that the lodges comprising 80 suites be built on the site or, indeed, for the extensive indoor leisure facilities to be created at the clubhouse. I understand that these facilities would include staff facilities with 12 ensuite bedrooms, a clubhouse with lounge, dining and changing facilities and a leisure centre with swimming, sauna and gym facilities. I do not believe that such substantial facilities and the residential accommodation is appropriate and necessary in a countryside setting. PAN43 on golf courses and associated developments suggests that only stand alone golf courses together with any necessary associated development such as car parks and clubhouses can be considered reversible. It also states that unless the associated developments can stand alone, then they should not be allowed. I was also concerned that the developers had not shown that their development would be of significant benefit to the local economy or that the proposal is viable. If the proposed 80 units contained in 8 to 10 lodges were not viable, what would become of them? Members of the public expressed worries at the Departure Hearing including concern about the project failing and then an alternative use being sought for these buildings. The proposed development is also contrary to the policies in the Structure and Local Plan relating to the loss of prime quality agricultural land. 3. Pay as You Play Policy [Note that the policy referred to below has since changed] The proposed development is contrary to the Council’s approved policy document “A Strategic Overview of Golf Course Proposals in the St. Andrews Area”. The document is now a material consideration when dealing with golf related developments and guideline 7 states that the Council would wish to control various aspects of the development including public access to golf courses through a Section 75 Agreement. This proposal as it stands offers no public access to the golf courses. Policy E6 of the Consultative Draft Structure Plan reinforces this guideline by stating that new golf courses or extensions to existing courses will be supported provided they “are substantially for pay and play”. This proposal does not meet this policy requirement. In the report to Committee of 30 May 2000 para. 6.63 states “both golf courses as proposed would be for private membership and would not include provision for pay as you play”. The situation is further complicated as should the applicants agree to consider an element of “pay and play” there may well be additional traffic implications. 4. Traffic Impact The St. Andrews Transportation Plan is on-going, the aim and ethos being to reduce traffic in a road network that is at capacity. It was for this reason that such a Plan was implemented by Fife Regional Council many years ago. These golf related developments only serve to exacerbate a situation that the Council is trying to reduce. In order to succeed and control any traffic impact this development might have on the town this application requires to have a Green Travel Plan. Much play is made on controlling movements of guests and staff in the usage of mini-buses and coaches and at certain times not only from airports etc. but when they are staying at the complex. In practice, it is well known that this will be difficult to monitor and control as the car will still be used by visitors. People like to feel free to come and go as they please, especially if they have paid a considerable sum of money to enjoy the benefits of the development. The developers argue that the traffic impact of their development will be minimal because of the way of the development will work. The Committee were not convinced that the development would work in the way suggested by the developers. The developers cannot control the movements of their members and guests. Whilst many of them will no doubt take advantage of the transport from the airports, others will make their own arrangements. The number of coach trips from the airports has been underestimated as no doubt the guests will be arriving and departing on many different flights at different times. The main concern of the Committee, however, is the number of vehicles which will enter St. Andrews from the development site. There is not enough for members to do on site to keep them there and a high proportion of them are bound to leave the site every day. The developers insist that the location of their development has to be St. Andrews because of its international appeal and, accordingly, the guests are bound to wish to spend a lot of time in the town itself. They are unlikely to wish to be restricted to travelling outwith the peak periods when the proposed mini-bus service is available and I consider it highly likely that they will make their own arrangements whether hiring vehicles or using taxis. Accordingly, the traffic generated by the development would be significantly above that predicted. The traffic in St. Andrews, especially in the summer months, is already at a level which causes congestion and any additional traffic would undoubtedly worsen the situation. On the construction traffic aspects of this development, we all know from bitter experience of a more recent development on the outskirts of the town, that the damage and cost of repair to the public roads by construction traffic has been considerable to such an extent that the roads have had to be closed to be repaired and other routes taken. From this recent experience, I cannot see how a similar scenario can be avoided by this proposed development. It would also cause disturbance to the residents of Wester Balrymonth Steading. 5. Pressure on St. Andrews Old Course Two further points have to be raised against this proposed development. Firstly, the pressure being brought to bear on the St. Andrews Links from this proposed development and a more recent one now being constructed. I would refer again to the report to the East Area Development Committee of 30 May 2000 para. 6.60. “whilst the development would bring more golfers into the area, it would also increase the demand, for example, for play on the Old Course”. St. Andrews Links Trust felt that it would be inappropriate to comment on any individual applications but in view of the Strategic Study, consultation and the questions arising over the future development of the town, the Trust set up a working party to look into the capacity of the Links. The conclusion was reached that some courses have already nearly reached capacity and that the rest of the courses have only a few more years before capacity is reached. There is no doubt that these large developers (who incorporate “St Andrews” into their name) are playing on the international golfing reputation of St. Andrews and many of the visitors that they hope to attract will naturally wish to play on the Old Course and to a lesser extent, the other courses in the town. You may argue that building other courses will take the pressure off the Old Course but in fact the reverse is the case as we all know that golfers coming to the town want to play the Old Course. Secondly, I have concerns on economic grounds and viability of the project. I would suggest that the applicants’ expectations are unrealistic, and I refer to para. 6.61 of the report to the East Area Development Committee of 30 May 2000. The applicants state that they will not commence the development until a minimum of 300 international membership sales have been achieved. Again, from experience recently, a new project that relied upon gaining international memberships failed dramatically in that it only sold £43,000 of the $1.5M target. The project never got going and the building is in the hands of the receivers who are now trying to sell it on the open market with difficulty. This project, therefore, on economic grounds and viability gives me grave concerns. I am concerned as to what will happen with a partly constructed development. 6. Conclusions The Committee are not against golf related developments - indeed, the Council has highlighted the importance of golf to St. Andrews and Fife in recent tourism strategy documents. However, the policy of the Council in both planning and tourism matters is to ensure that any developments are sustainable - in both environmental and economic development terms. The proposed development does not fit in with this sustainable approach. It would result in further traffic congestion in the town and have an adverse environmental impact on the town which would be to the detriment of both residents and tourists. Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Assessment of the Economic Impact on time St. Andrews and Fife Economies of this Proposal by A. A. Jackson, MA, MSc, MIED 1. Introduction 1.1 The following provides a professional opinion on the economic impact of the proposal to provide a golfing facility at Scooniehill Farm. The author is a Director and Vice-Chair of the National Council of the Institution of Economic Development, which is the foremost professional body for economic practitioners in local and regional development in the United Kingdom. He has wide experience of economic impact analysis. He has undertaken work for the Scottish Office, the Scottish Tourist Board, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and islands Enterprise, Fife Regional Council, Fife Enterprise, Shell Expro and Exxon Chemicals, amongst others, on analysing the economic impact of developments. These include, for example, evaluation of the economic impact of Mossmorran, of the proposed closure of the Rosyth Royal Dockyards, and of the improvements to ferry facilities in the Highlands and Islands. He is also acknowledged as an authority in his area of research in academic circles, having published widely on such matters. He is currently a Senior Lecturer at the University of Dundee. 1.2 No attempt is made to offer a full evaluation of this proposal, because the lack of information made public to date by the developer on any market assessments, bed nights to he sold and gross annual turnover precludes this. However, we have had accces to the much fuller Initial Impact Studies for St. Andrews Bay Development Ltd undertaken by Firn Crichton Roberts Ltd on behalf of the developers of the Kingask proposal. This offers what is a perfectly valid methodology for evaluating such impacts, albeit with certain aspects which require more careful consideration, and provides a great deal more information on a comparable proposal. The Firn Crichton Roberts (FRC) study offers a baseline against which the unsupported claims of economic benefits made on behalf of the Scooniehill development proposal may be evaluated. My earlier professional opinion on the Kingask proposal is appended to this statement for the purposes of comparison. 1.3 The conclusions which may be drawn from the following opinion on the economic impact of the Scooniehill proposal can be briefly summarised at the outset. They are that: • The assertion that this proposal offers “significant tourism benefits to the area” as is claimed in the reasons for approving a potential departure to the development plan given in the report to the East Fife Area Development Committee (para. 8.0 item 13(e)2, 30 May 2000) is not supported by the evidence submitted. No evidence has been submitted which substantiates the scale of full-time equivalent (fte) jobs claimed for the on-site and off-site expenditure of visitors using this facility when fully operational. The estimates given for the gross fte jobs directly and indirectly attributable to the proposal appear on the evidence available to be greatly over-stated. In any event, the appropriate methodology for assessing the impact on St. Andrews and Fife of such a tourism investment is to consider the aggregate effect across the whole local economy, and not to confine the analysis to the benefits accruing to the proposal itself, which may be realised at the expense of others in the local economy. As is common knowledge amongst practitioners in this field, tile advice provided by the Scottish Tourist Board for evaluating Proposals suggests that all such tourism investments have substantial displacement effects on existing providers of similar capacity operating in the same location. There are good reasons for believing that because of the peculiar nature of the St. Andrews market, and the lack of additional capacity to play on its major attraction (the Old Course) such displacement effects would be even greater than is normal. • Under these circumstances, my professional opinion is that it would be wholly inappropriate to uphold an appeal against refusal of this application by relying on the argument that the economic benefits are sufficient to outweigh those factors which militate against this proposal on other grounds. In my view, this development will have only a marginal economic impact on the Fife and St. Andrews economies, and it is not clear whether this marginal impact, when the effect on the rest of the tourist sector is considered against any gains which may be realised by the developer, will be positive or negative. There are severe capacity constraints determining access to tile Old Course, which is the predominant attraction to overseas visitors of a golfing visit to St. Andrews. These constraints cannot be lifted and effectively mean that for every visitor choosing Scooniehill as a base to play at the Old Course, a visitor who might otherwise have chosen a different St. Andrews base to play the Old Course will be displaced. The developer has yet to demonstrate convincingly how his proposal, rather than simply relying on capturing part of the existing market, will generate substantial added value in the form of new international golfing tourism for the area that will not expect to gain access to the Old Course. Failing this, his claims of aggregate net economic benefits accruing to the St. Andrews and Fife communities, as distinct from any benefits his development may realise at the expense of existing tourism businesses in the area, should be treated in the same fashion as those made by any new business setting up in competition with existing traders. 2. The proposal 2.1 Item 13(e)2 of tile Fife Council East Fife Area Committee of 30 May 2000 states (para 6.58 Economic Development) that ‘the direct economic impact’ of the proposal would be: • Phase 1: construction — 120 jobs (fte?); • Phase 2: operational phase — initially 57 ftes rising to 107; • Phase 3: members/guest spend — rising to 112 ftes. There is clearly some confusion in this statement placed before the committee. Phase 3 is concurrent with, and not sequential to, Phase 2, and refers to the off-site expenditure of visitors in the local economy. This is not normally treated as part of the direct effects, and in any event the Scottish Tourist Board advice, based on research undertaken for the Scottish Office (see The Scottish Tourism Multiplier Study, 3 vols., Edinburgh, Scottish Office, 1995), suggests that approximately 75% of such off-site expenditures should be treated as displacing similar expenditure which would in any event have occurred at other sites in the absence of such a facility. To the extent that such expenditure is associated with the Old Course, which has reached its capacity levels, the level of displacement will be even greater. 2.2 As the Kingask study on the economic impacts of that development acknowledged (FCR, 1998), the Old Course is of critical importance of the availability of the Old Course in attracting high-spend overseas tourism to St. Andrews: “13 courses in Fife targeted the North American market (and most serious players) in 1997. Only Balbirnie Park and Lundin Links has spare capacity, though Crail would have when its new course was in use. The Old Course had virtually no spare capacity, and demand for it was such that golfers might not come on holiday to Fife unless they were assured of a round on the Old Course” (p.15). This finding is based on a 1997 report by Fife Enterprise which in turn is based on original research funded by the Scottish Tourist Board and undertaken by me in 1990 on visiting golfers (Jackson A A , Visiting Golfers at St. Andrews, STB Research Report, 1990). It is crucial to the assessment of the displacement effects at the top end of the market, international golfing visits, at which this development is targeted. The findings of research on golf tourism at St. Andrews point unambiguously at the pulling power of the Old Course. Without the opportunity to play this set of links, few of the overseas visitors willing to pay for high grade accommodation in and around St. Andrews would wish to make a visit to Scotland. There is thus a clear finite capacity constraint which the town faces in attempting to attract additional such clientele under conditions where the capacity for extra visitor rounds on the Old Course is negligible. 2.3 It is illuminating to compare the economic evidence presented in favour of the Kingask development with that for this proposal. The Kingask development economic impacts are predicated on construction of a 240 bedroom luxury hotel anticipated to attract more than 63,000 guest nights during its first year of operation. Taking no account of displacement effects, this is estimated eventually to generate in gross terms from an annual turnover of £14 million: • 549 fte local jobs during the construction phase • 310 fte direct jobs on-site when complete • 169 off-site indirect and induced ftc jobs (FCR, 1998, para. 5). 2.4 The gross estimate of turnover per job sustained once the operation is fully functioning at Kingask is thus approximately £29,000 (£14 million divided by 479). On the same basis, for 219 fte gross jobs to be sustained by the Scooniehill proposal, the annual turnover generated by this development would have to be £6.35 million, ie 45% of that at Kingask. It is difficult to see how a complex which can offer only 80 suites on a rural site with a clubhouse but no separate leisure facilities, golf academy or hotel could generate such an annual turnover or claim to support such a level of gross job creation. 2.5 It is perhaps an accurate reflection of the level of expertise applied by the developer to the question of the economic impact of this proposal that his estimate of gross impacts in terms of fte jobs has remained unchanged between the original proposal, submitted to the East Fife Area Development Committee on 29 June 1999 (Agenda Item no. 12f, para. 3.39), and the latest revised submission (East Area Development Committee 30 May 2000, Item 13(e)2, para. 6.58). This is in the face of a considerable downscaling of the proposal, with the new submission omitting a golf academy and separate leisure facilities. Despite this, according to the submission, the turnover and number of jobs to be created both during the construction phase and once the development is in operation will remain unaffected. 2.6 It is evident from a perusal of the Scooniehill proposal’s Environmental Statement (The Paul Hogarth Company, St. Andrews International Golf Club Environment Statement, South Queensferry, 1999) that no professional advice has been taken on how to calculate the on- and off-site estimates of ftc jobs stemming from this proposal. The Contributors and Sources of Advice listed therein (p.l7) do not include the Scottish Tourist Board. Instead, it is simply stated (para.3.5) that “statistical information” drawn from the STB was “utilised to assess the economic impact”, with no explanation of the methodology employed offered. My professional opinion is that, in the absence of adequate market research subject to public scrutiny which the developer has had ample time to provide, the gross estimate of employment to be generated by this proposal should be significantly downgraded from the unsupported estimates provided. In this context, it is of interest to note that a similar attempt to finance a large local golfing investment offering exclusive membership rights on the basis of subscriptions has recently failed (The Gateway Project). 3. The effect on the local economy 3.1 The crucial point in any economic assessment, however, is the extent to which the gross value added and turnover which supports such ftc jobs can be said to bring a true net additional benefit to the local economy. This requires an analysis of the overall impact of this proposal on the local economy, to determine its net added value after taking into consideration the effects of the proposal on the rest of the local economy. For net added value to be generated in the local economy, the visitors attracted to Scooniehill must be genuinely additional to the existing inflows, rather than simply consisting of visitors who would come in any event, and who would now choose to stay at Scooniehill rather than at an existing local facility. 3.2 To undertake this type of assessment requires an analysis of the impact of this proposal on existing international golf holiday visitor capacity in the area. Although no effort is made by the developer to give this information, it is possible to establish the parameters of such analysis from a review of the context within which the proposal seeks to operate. This is claimed to be a golfing investment supported by additional facilities that are tailored to the top end of the market for international golfing visits, it is this that warrants the developer’s assertion that the location has to be adjacent to St. Andrews, so that the pulling power of the St. Andrews Links and especially the Old Course will attract clientele. Unless it can be demonstrated to be exploiting an untapped segment of this market, the development will largely be displacing the business of other existing providers, with little net benefit to the local economy. 3.3 In order to assess the validity of the claim that this development can tap into an entirely new type of international golfing tourism clientele for St. Andrews and thus add net value to the existing market, one must examine the market itself and the statements made by the developer in this respect. The Environment Statement provided by the developer (The Paul Hogarth Company, op.cit., para 2.1) states that: “Given that St. Andrews is ‘The home of Golf’, it is imperative for the success of this golf development, which is aimed at attracting members principally from overseas, that its location be St. Andrews.” 3.4 This statement begs a number of crucial questions which lie at the heart of evaluating the net economic impact on the St. Andrews and Fife economies. It is not disputed that the Old Course is the prime magnet for such overseas golfing visits, and that it is currently already operating at capacity. To claim that a location at St. Andrews is ‘imperative’ for the success of this development implies that for Scooniehill to succeed it will have to capture a substantial section of the current annual numbers of overseas golfing visits that play on the Old Course. Effectively, this can only be done by displacing overseas visitors who would otherwise have chosen to stay in existing up-market golfing accommodation at St. Andrews to play the Old Course and, moreover, to compete for a share of this market alongside the large development at Kingask which is coming on stream. It is improbable that such high spend overseas visitors would be attracted to golf in St. Andrews purely by the prospect of playing on rural new greenfield golf courses. The climatic attractions of the coast of Fife even at the height of summer pale against other such leisure investments in new courses around the world in more clement locations. 3.5 When it comes to analysing the impact on the market for international golfing tourism in St. Andrews, the economic development assessment offered by Fife Council in its evaluation of the current proposal (East Fife Area Development Committee, 30 May 2000, Item 13(e)2, paras. 6.58 to 6.63) is wholly inadequate. It displays weak logic and poor economic analysis. In para. 6.58 it is stated that “whilst the development would provide on-site facilities for leisure and catering, nevertheless there would be spin-off spend into the local economy for existing businesses”. From this unexceptionable statement, the assessment then makes a jump in logic in the following paragraph to offer an (ungrammatical) assertion wholly unsupported by the evidence: “The membership spend will therefore be in addition spend into the economy. The applicants do not envisage a displacement of existing jobs in the locality through the jobs created. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there would be significant job creation and potential economic and tourism benefits associated with the proposed development”. 3.6 Most responsible economic analysts would doubt that because a developer tells one so, it must be true! No evidence is presented to establish that the provision of this facility will not displace existing capacity in St. Andrews. Indeed, as has been argued above, there are very good reasons for believing that it will. The Scottish Tourist Board in its standard guidance on assessing the economic impact of tourism investments automatically assumes a significant element of displacement. Consideration of displacement effects should be a self-evident part of any economic assessment of such a proposal, and familiar to anyone practising economic development in local government. Indeed, the remainder of the same paragraph includes what appears to be a qualification of the uncritical acceptance that the off-site spend will be wholly additional and have no displacement effects on the rest of the local economy: “However, there are aspects which are less clear. Whilst the development would bring more golfers into the area it would also increase the demand, for example to play on the Old Course. It is also not clear to what degree the job creation will impact on existing businesses, whether they will be competing for the same pool of employees and whether this would push existing employers to source employees from a much wider area” (op.cit.para. 6.59) 3.7 Unfortunately once again both the logic and the economic analysis in the above sentences are weak. Since it is acknowledged that the Old Course is already operating at capacity, basic economic analysis is sufficient to demonstrate that golfers attracted to Scooniehill who wish to play the Old Course will be at the expense of golfers who would otherwise have stayed at the existing St. Andrews accommodation tailored to the overseas golfing visitors market. Under these circumstances, far from making existing employers source their employees from a much wider area, existing employers who lose such business to Scooniehill are more likely to have to release staff. There will be no competition for the same pool of employees unless the Scooniehill development can tap into an international clientele that is attracted by playing at St. Andrews but who do not wish to gain access to the Old Course. Research indicates that such an international clientele is negligible (see Jackson A A [1990] Visiting golfers at St. Andrews (Research Report No.1) Edinburgh, Scottish Tourist Board; TMS [1997a] Fife Golf Study Glenrothes, Fife Enterprise; TMS [1997b] Survey of Visiting Golfers at St. Andrews 1997 Edinburgh, Scottish Tourist Board; Fife Planning Service [1999] A Strategic Overview of Golf Course Proposals in the St. Andrews Area Glenrothes, Fife Council). 3.8 The only way in which extra high-spend overseas visitors who wish to play the Old Course can be attracted to St. Andrews by any new development and so create net additional tourism benefits for the local economy would be to restrict access to the Old Course to those from abroad, and to squeeze out the remaining current low-spend local and U.K players. Indeed, this appears to be the unstated import of all such assertions that St. Andrews can support additional overseas golfing tourism. Such a displacement of low spend local and UK golfers, whether intentional or not, is an inexorably result of the current logic supporting these new developments and clearly would not fulfil the objectives of current planning guidance in respect of the development of new golfing facilities (SOED [1994] Golf courses and associated developments (Planning Advice Note PAN43) Edinburgh, Scottish Office Environment Department). 3.9 Under these circumstances, the official Fife Council economic development ‘assessment’ offered in para. 6.63 of the East Fife Development Committee report tabled on this proposal on 30 May 2000 as Item 13(e)2 is patently unsubstantiated by any rigorous economic analysis: “Assessment - The proposals would, over a phased period, provide a facility targeted at primarily international visitors. This would generate additional visitors to the area contributing to the tourist industry and the local economy. The creation of direct jobs, together with the spin-offs locally as a result of the membership spend would add to the health of the tourist industry and the economy. Whilst not directly serving residents of the area or providing pay and play facilities nevertheless existing facilities would benefit from the addition visitors in terms of their own viability. It is therefore considered that there would be significant development benefits from the proposed development.” 3.10 This conclusion is based on no valid evidence and reads more as a set of wish fulfillments than as a serious attempt at an economic impact assessment. There is little local spare capacity either in the main attraction to international golfing visitors or in the local labour market, which already enjoys a healthy demand for workers (the local DETR job shop had to advertise heavily during the Open Golf Championship in attempts to fill a large number of posts which eventually had to be met largely by temporarily re-locating and bussing people from all over the UK). If the proposal could be justified by attracting sufficient international golfing visitors who choose to use this facility without requiring access to the Old Course, then it might be claimed that Scooniehill adds to the current numbers of international visitors seeking to play golf in this part of Fife and so offers some net added value to the local economy. 3.11 However, to the extent that this proposal is designed to compete in the market for overseas visitors who seek an opportunity to play the Old Course as an essential part of any visit to St. Andrews, which seems to be the case since the location by St. Andrews is claimed to be ‘imperative, the estimates of economic impact given must be heavily discounted by the displacement effects on existing local accommodation already catering for this need and by substantial new accommodation catering for this market coming on stream. This follows logically from the fact that the capacity of the Old Course cannot be increased and that it is already operating to this capacity. At the end of the day, there is only so much overseas golfing tourism that can be accommodated on the Old Course. The potential demand for such access has already been boosted significantly by the addition to local capacity of the development at Kingask, a much bigger investment that that proposed for Scooniehill. Allowing additional capacity to compete for the same market will mean that all will have to make do with smaller shares of a finite commodity. 3.12 To the extent that the St. Andrews accommodation catering for this market segment can then make good vacant up-market bed nights by going down market, and by selling accommodation to those who do not wish to play the Old Course, whether UK or overseas in origin, this will represent a loss of turnover per head which must be offset against any projected turnover for Scooniehill in calculating the overall benefits of this proposal. To the extent that existing capacity may be forced to close because the numbers of visitors associated with high spend golfing tourism capable of gaining access to the Old Course is insufficient to meet the overheads of all existing and new capacity, this will be a very tangible loss of income and jobs to the local economy which must also be offset against any projections of turnover for a new investment. In these circumstances, the net added value of this proposal to the local economy can at best only be regarded as marginal. more Scooniehill Info back to Scooniehill News up to Top |