Note of Pre-Inquiry Meeting: Proposed development on land around Scooniehill Farm, by St Andrews, Fife. Meeting held at 10.30am on Tuesday 29 August 2000 in the Town Hall, Queens Gardens, St Andrews. [Appeal ref.: P/PPA/25O/277]

1. Subject of the Inquiry

The pre-inquiry meeting was arranged to discuss the arrangements for the forthcoming public local inquiry into the appeal by “The International Golf Club of St Andrews Limited” against the refusal by Fife Council of outline planning for the development of 2 golf courses, a Club House, accommodation lodges and car parking on land around Scooniehill Farm, by St Andrews. It was explained that the purpose of the meeting was solely to discuss the arrangements for the forthcoming Inquiry and to outline the procedures that would be adopted.

2. Parties Intending to Participate in the Inquiry

On behalf of The International Golf Club of St Andrews Limited, Elaine Farquarson-Black of Paull & Williamsons (Solicitors) stated that either herself or Mr Bruce Smith would be acting for the appellants in this appeal. It was currently intended to lead 4 witnesses at the Inquiry. The appellant’s witnesses would deal with (a) the background of the company and the proposal; (b) landscape issues; (c) traffic considerations; and (d) planning policy.

On behalf of Fife Council Mrs June Barrie (Solicitor) indicated that the council was still considering precisely how best to present its case. At this stage it was intended that 2 councillors from the Area Development Committee would give evidence. The question of additional professional witnesses was still under consideration and depended to some extent on the Reporter’s views on the matter. The Reporter indicated that during the course of the meeting he would outline the issues on which he wished to receive evidence and it would then a matter for the council to decide how best to present its case.

The St Andrews Preservation Trust were represented by Mrs D Morrison, Miss P Uprichard and Mr John Peacock, and they indicated that it was the Trust’s intention to give evidence at the Inquiry but that discussions were still taking place to decide precisely who would present the case.

Mrs J Hopgood of the St Andrews Green Belt Forum also indicated that the group might participate in the Inquiry, but that further consideration was required of how this could best be achieved. She also indicated that it was possible that the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland, of which she is a member, may also wish to give evidence. This was a matter that would be decided in the course of the next few weeks.

On behalf of the Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council, Mr I Goudie had previously intimated that he would be unable to attend the pre-inquiry meeting, but that it was the intention of the Community Council to appear at the Inquiry.

The position of Cameron Community Council with regard to giving evidence at the Inquiry was unclear. The Reporter indicated he would approach them directly to establish their views.

A number of the individuals present at the meeting indicated that they may wish to give evidence to the Inquiry. Mr Sharkie, Dr Lasselle and Mr Wishart stated that they would consider their positions and inform the Reporter of their decisions in due course. Although not present at the preinquiry meeting Dr K Fietze, Mr P A Hardie and Mr C Hardisty had written to say that it was their intention to give evidence at the Inquiry.

The Reporter indicated that in reaching his decision on this appeal he would be taking into account not only evidence and oral submissions heard at the Inquiry, but also any written submissions received, including those originally submitted to the council on the planning application. In other words, interested parties do not have to appear at the Inquiry to ensure that their views are noted.

3. Opportunities for parties to group together

The Reporter stated that at the Inquiry, he would want to be informed of all views on the appeal proposals. However, he emphasised that it was not an efficient use of inquiry time to have a number of people repeating the same points. In fact, repetitive evidence would not generally be permitted. It was noted that many of those who object to the proposal have made broadly similar points (notably in respect of the visual impact of the development and the effects of increased traffic on the town). Similarly, those in favour of the development have also made the same general points regarding the benefits of the proposal. The Reporter therefore encouraged as many of the parties as possible to try and group together to present a co-ordinated case on the appeal.

The Reporter then asked whether the parties have given any consideration to this matter. The St Andrews Preservation Trust and the St Andrews Green Belt Forum indicated that the matter had not been discussed prior to the meeting, but that this was a possibility that they would wish to consider the issue further. The Reporter asked whether it was likely that the Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council would be prepared to join in with the presentation of a joint case on appeal. It was indicated that because they may have a somewhat different position on the proposal this may not be possible. The Reporter asked if Trust could also contact the Community Council to clarify its position. The outcome of any such discussions should be made known to his office. If some form of grouping was in a position to represent most of the views of the objectors, this would be of significance to the Reporter in his decision on whether or not there was any justification in nominating a body as a “relevant person” at the Inquiry (see below).

The Reporter explained that under the Inquiries Procedure Rules, parties who submit written representations are known as “statutory parties”, and they are generally allowed to present oral evidence to the Inquiry. If statutory parties group together and form a body that is capable of representing all or most of the views expressed by statutory parties, that body may sometimes justify being treated as a “relevant person”. A “relevant person” is required to provide a statement of case, and in turn receives statements of case, documents and precognitions from the principal parties (i.e. the appellants and the council).

4. The scope of the evidence / need for further information

It was emphasised that it was incumbent on the Reporter to ensure that all planning matters of relevance to the determination of the appeal were fully considered at the Inquiry. While it is primarily a matter for the parties to decide what evidence they intended to lead and how best to present their cases, the Reporter indicated that he would wish parties to address the following issues in their evidence:

• the compliance of the proposal with: (a) the development plan; and (b) the emerging structure plan, and the weight that should be accorded to this document

• the consistency of the proposed development with the non-statutory St Andrews Strategic Plan, and the weight that should be accorded to that document

• the compliance of the proposal with SDD Circular 24/1985 ‘Development in the Countryside and Green Belt’

• the compliance of the proposal with NPPG 17 on Planning and Transport and with the principles of sustainable development

• the specific benefits of the development to the local economy

• the compliance of the proposal with NPPG 11 on Sport and Physical Recreation

• an assessment of the proposal against the advice in PAN 43 on Golf Courses and Associated Developments

• an assessment of the impact on Gregory Pillar, a Category ‘B’ listed structure

• an analysis of the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the landscape setting of St Andrews, and its consistency with the guidance in NPPG14 on Natural Heritage and NPPG 18 on Planning and the Historic Environment

• the traffic implications of the proposal

It was emphasised that this list should not necessarily be regarded as exhaustive or complete.

Need for further information

The planning application was accompanied by an environmental statement. This was subject to some criticism from SNH and others, and some further information has been provided. The Reporter stated that he would need to have sufficient environmental information to enable him to assess the effects of the proposals. He asked whether any of the parties (particularly the appellants) have carried out, or propose to carry out any further studies with a view to updating the environmental information that they intend bringing before the Inquiry. The appellants indicated that they had commissioned further work on the landscape matters and that this would be made available to the Inquiry.

Planning Conditions

The Inquiry Procedure Rules require the planning authority to provide a list of the conditions which it considers should be imposed in the event that planning permission was to be granted. However, the Reporter indicated that it is more useful if this list can be provided in the form of an agreed statement between the parties. Parties were therefore encouraged to get together before the start of the inquiries to consider this matter further. It was stressed that the provision of an agreed set of conditions was without prejudice to the outcome of the appeal and could save a lot of inquiry time. In response to a question from Councillor Douglas, the Reporter indicated that he would take account of the views of the parties on the proposed conditions, but that it was ultimately for him to ensure that any conditions which may be imposed met the tests in Circular 4/1998. It was also indicated that parties should consider the terms of any section 75 agreements that may be required.

5. Inquiry procedures

The Inquiry will proceed in accordance with the Town And Country Planning Appeals (Determination By Appointed Person) (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1997, as amended by the 1998 amendment rules. The Reporter stated that copies of the relevant Annex of Circular 17/1998, which sets out the relevant procedures, would be forwarded to participating parties.

The order of evidence: It was indicated that the evidence from the appellants would be heard first, then evidence from any supporters of the proposal. This would be followed by the evidence of the council as planning authority, and then the objectors. The Reporter recognised that it was often difficult for third parties to find time to attend public inquiries, and it was stated that he would be happy to arrange, in advance, specific days and times for third parties to appear if they so requested. This is a matter that would be specifically addressed on the opening morning of the Inquiry.

Each party to the Inquiry may call witnesses, who will provide precognitions. A precognition is the written statement of the evidence which it is proposed that a witness will give to the Inquiry. Where these are more than 2,000 words long, the inquiry procedure rules require that summary precognitions be provided. Witnesses will read from their summary precognition, but they may be allowed to read out limited parts of their full precognition where the Reporter considers that this would assist his understanding of key or complex matters.

The evidence of the witnesses will then be open to cross-examination by parties of opposing view. So-called “friendly” cross-examination by parties “on the same side” will not be allowed, but limited questioning by way of clarification will be acceptable. Cross-examination is, of course, on the basis of the evidence in the full precognition.

After the conclusion of the main evidence, and without prejudice to the decision on the appeal it may be appropriate to have a session dealing specifically with possible planning conditions, if these matters have not already been fully aired during the preceding stages of the Inquiry.

Finally, parties who present evidence will be entitled to make a closing submission, with the appellants having the last word. [In other words, in the reverse order from the hearing of the evidence.] The Reporter hoped that parties would ensure that he had a typed copy of their closing submissions before they were read out and that extra copies would be available for the other parties.

After the close of the inquiries, there will be the opportunity for an accompanied site inspection of the appeal site.

6. Timetable for the Inquiry

Length of Inquiry

On the basis of the information provided at the meeting, the Reporter considered that the Inquiry was likely to last between 4 and 6 days depending on the number of third parties who wished to give evidence.

Start date

After discussion it was agreed that the Inquiry would commence at 10am on Tuesday 21 November 2000 in the Council Chamber, the Town Hall, Queen’s Gardens, St Andrews.

7. (i) Timetable for Submission of Statements of Case, Documents and Precognitions

The inquiry procedure rules place emphasis on the full prior disclosure of information about parties cases in a structured, consistent and comprehensive manner. It was stressed that it is therefore important that all parties adhere to the timescales set down and agreed.

Statements of Case: These are required from the appellants and the planning authority (and any other “relevant person”). They must contain full particulars of the case to be presented at the Inquiry, and they should be accompanied by a list of the documents to which reference will be made, and a list of witnesses who will be giving evidence. It was agreed that the statements of case should be submitted by Monday 2 October 2000.

Sometimes parties may wish to adjust their statements of case in the light of what the other side has said. Any amended statements should be submitted within 1 week of the date for submission of the original statements, i.e. by Tuesday 10 October.

Documents. These are mainly written documents (but may include maps, photographs etc) to which parties wish to refer in the course of their evidence. They must be provided by all parties participating at the inquiries who wish to refer to such sources. They must be clearly numbered and referenced.

As there is no point in each of the parties supplying copies of all the important documents to which more than one party is bound to refer (such as National Planning Policy Guidelines, the Structure Plan, the Local Plan and the council’s St Andrews Strategic Study 1989), it was agreed that such documents should be treated as “core documents” and provided by one of the principal parties. Fife Council agreed to liase with the appellants over the identification and supply of these core documents.

All documents require to be circulated at least 4 weeks before the start of the Inquiry, i.e. by Tuesday 24 October

Precognitions: These should be provided for all parties and witnesses who propose to give evidence at the Inquiry. Precognitions should not contain tables or technical appendices. These should be provided as separate documents in accordance with the timetable set out above.

Precognitions (and summary precognitions) should be circulated at least 2 weeks before the start of the Inquiry, i.e. by Tuesday 7 November.

It was indicated that it is helpful to the Inquiry if principal parties (in particular) can bring a number of extra copies of precognitions and summary precognitions to the Inquiry. This enables third parties to follow the proceedings more easily. The Reporter therefore requested that parties made extra copies of precognitions and summaries available at the Inquiry on the day that the witness is to be heard.

(ii) Arrangements for distribution of paperwork

Copies of all statements of case, documents and precognitions have to be supplied to each of the main parties and the Reporter, and placed on deposit for the general public to view.

Therefore, the appellant would require to supply two sets of statements of case, documents and precognitions to the council (one of which would go on deposit) and one set to the Reporter and any other “relevant persons” (if appropriate). The council would supply one set to the appellant, one set to the Reporter, one set to any other “relevant persons” and place a set on deposit. Third parties have to supply two sets of documents and precognitions to the council, and one set to the appellant, the Reporter and to any other “relevant person” (if appropriate).

Deposit Venue for Documents: Ideally, this should be as accessible as possible to the residents of St Andrews and the adjoining area. Two possible locations were identified: the local area office of Fife Council in St Mary’s Place and the Town Library. The council agreed to investigate these locations and make the necessary arrangements for the deposit of the documents. The council also agreed to be responsible for retaining an up to date set of documents at the deposit venue, and for bringing these to the inquiry venue on the opening day of the PLI.

Note: Any future queries regarding the appeal should be addressed to the case officer: Mrs Fiona Upton, Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit, 2 Greenside Lane, Edinburgh EH1 3AG (Tel: 0131-244-5666 Fax: 0131 244 5680).