|
Scooniehill Golf and Leisure Complex - Background
Info Planning reports more Scooniehill Info back to Scooniehill News Report placed before the East Area Development Committee on 29 June 1999, when considering several golf-related proposals, including the original Scooniehill proposal 08-98-0051D. This original Scooniehill proposal was not supported by the East Area Development Committee on the day, and it was rejected by the Strategic Development Committee on 7 July 1999. FIFE COUNCIL APPLICATIONS FOR GOLF COURSES AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT: 08-98-0051D - SCOONIEHILL FARM, BY ST ANDREWS; O8-99-OO1OD - KINGASK ESTATE, BY ST ANDREWS; 08-99-0031D - LUMBO FARM AND FEDDINCH ESTATES/MOUNT MELVILLE ESTATES, BY ST ANDREWS. 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this report is to give this Committee the opportunity to consider the 3 applications listed above and for the views of this Committee to be passed to the Strategic Development Committee for consideration at its meeting on 7 July 1999, when it convenes for a special meeting to determine all 3 applications. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Members will be aware that presentations and representations relating to all 3 applications have already been heard by the Strategic Development Committee at a Departure to Development Plan Hearing held at the Town Hall, St Andrews on 17 June 1999. A minute of that meeting will be presented to the Strategic Development Committee. Summaries of the main issues raised at the Hearing are contained within this report. 2.2 This report contains individual sections relating to the respective applications, giving details of the application proposals, planning histories, consultations, objections and representations and assessment of planning issues. A recommendation is also included. Copies of all consultations, objections and representations are available in the Members’ Lounge of the County Buildings, Cupar. 2.3 Planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Structure Plan and Local Plan provisions therefore provide a statutory starting point for the assessment of the planning application. Summarised details of the individual policies are referred to in an appendix to this report, together with the full policy background to the 3 applications including the following. • Local Plan and Structure Plan policies. 3.0 08-98-0051D - OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR 2 GOLF COURSES, CLUBHOUSE, LEISURE FACILITIES, RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND GOLF ACADEMY AT SCOONIEHILL FARM, BY ST ANDREWS : ST ANDREWS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB LTD 3.1 Planning History There have been no previous planning applications relating to the application site. 3.2 Application Details The current application was lodged as an outline application with limited details concerning the potential impact of the proposals. However the elements of the application are as follows: 1. 2 x 18 hole golf course. 3.3 Following the lodging of the application the applicants were advised that more extensive information was required relating to landscape appraisal, nature of uses, transportation impact and economic impact. 3.4 Additional supporting information was lodged by the applicants including a Traffic Impact Assessment, landscape assessment (photo montages and indicative plans) and full supporting statement incorporating details of economic impact. 3.5 The proposed buildings are indicatively shown as being to the south and east of the existing steading at Scooniehill. Whilst the existing buildings would be removed, only one block of the proposed buildings would be accommodated predominantly within the steading footprint. The indicative sectional details identify the ridge height of the existing buildings as being the yardstick height for the proposals, with the sloping ground to the south allowing the buildings to be no higher than the existing although they would present additional built form on the ridge. The full group of buildings would however be clearly seen from the southern approaches into St Andrews. 3.6 Location and Site Details The application site extends to an area of 202ha (500 acres) from the A91 5 St Andrews to Largo Road in the west to the Grange Road in the east. To the north the site extends beyond the ridge line, upon which lies Scooniehill steading, onto the southern slopes facing St Andrews and around the edge of Wester Balrymonth hill. To the south the site extends down into and through the bowl of land through which runs a disused railway line. 3.7 The majority of the site is cropped or grassed with some woodland and is classified as Grade 2 and 3, agricultural land and is located within an Area of Great Landscape Value. There are hedgerows and stone walling within the site and field boundaries, to a varying degree of quality. 3.8 The existing steading group of buildings at Scooniehill incorporates sections of stone construction but for the most part are of contemporary style utilising modern materials. Also present though, is the historic Gregorys Pillar which lies to the north of the existing farm cottages at the steading. 3.9 An access road runs from the A915 to the Grange road, passes through the residential conversion of Wester Balrymonth steading and Scooniehill steading. The proposals involve accessing all the development off the existing access at the A91 5 but bypassing Wester Balrymonth with a separate access road. There are Rights of way which extend through the site as part of a wider network of routes. 3.10 Consultation Responses Consultations have been carried out twice, being in respect of firstly the initial submission and secondly the additional supporting information. Accordingly both responses are referred to, where relevant, under each consultee. 3.11 St Andrews Preservation Trust Limited Objections lodged for the following reasons:- 1. Inadequacy of plans submitted. 3.12 Cameron Community Council The application site actually lies within the Cameron Community Council area. The initial response reserved its position pending the receipt of further information. No comments on the additional information have yet been received. 3.13 Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council The Community Council has formally objected to the proposals, on several issues which can be summarised as follows:- 1. Proliferation of golf course developments. 3.14 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) SNH considers that the landscape character area within which the proposed development is located has some landscape capacity to accommodate the type of developments proposed. However there are important landscape sensitivities to be taken into account. SNH is of the opinion that the application should be the subject of a full Environmental Assessment to assess the impact of the proposed developments. 3.15 Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (AHSS) Objections lodged for the following reasons:- 1. Impact on the landscape, including loss of agricultural
land. 3.16 Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland Various comments are made relating to traffic generation, development being visible in views of St Andrews, retention of Gregory’s Pillar and the probable changes on the nature of the landscape by the formation of the golf course. The Commission concluded by stating that the centre of the historic town and its surroundings can be easily damaged by such developments. 3.17 The Scottish Civic Trust The Trust initially objected to the application and considered that more detailed information was required and the demolition of the existing stone buildings to be unacceptable. 3.18 Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland (APRS) An initial objection was lodged suggesting that an Environmental Assessment should be required, due to the landscape around St Andrews being highly valued. The concerns were listed as follows:- 1. The visually intrusive nature of the proposed buildings
and the need for them to be sensitively sited and designed. Subsequently APRS has stated that is considers the application to be premature pending the publication of the strategic overview of golf courses in St Andrews. It does not consider the associated facilities to be a suitable green belt use and is disappointed to see the proposal to demolish the existing buildings. 3.19 Scottish Tourist Board No comments to make. 3.20 Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board No comments to make. 3.21 Fife Enterprise Comments awaited. 3.22 The Scottish Office - Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department Comments made regarding the amount of irreversible developments. 3.23 Fife Council Economic Development Service It is considered that there would be economic benefits from such a development in terms of permanent jobs directly provided at the developments. There could also be additional visitor spend within St Andrews and the rest of Fife if net additional visitors are attracted. 3.24 Fife Council -Transportation Service The Transportation Service has advised that the proposal may be acceptable subject to appropriate conditions and a Section 75 Agreement. (A comprehensive report relating to all 3 applications is included as an appendix to this report.) 3.25 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Various comments are made relating to requirements for foul and surface water drainage, available capacities, water courses, contaminated water, discharges and irrigation abstraction control but no objection is raised. 3.26 East of Scotland Water (ESWA) Timing of available drainage facilities, pollution control and water availability are referred to but no objections raised. 3.27 The Scottish Sports Council The Council comments that such developments cannot be justified on the basis of local need and that the area is already well provided with golf courses. The Councils national policy is to encourage more pay-as-you-play type courses for all sections of the community who want to take up the game. The Council does, however, recognise the potential benefits in relation to the tourist market and the local economy. The Council therefore raises no objections. 3.28 St Andrews Merchants Association The Association has no objection in principle but is concerned that the development should be well screened and that too many houses are proposed. 3.29 St Andrews Links Trust No comments submitted. 3.30 St Andrews Guest Houses Association No comments submitted. 3.31 Objections and Representations A total of 78 individual letters have been lodged in response to the application. Of these 71 are objections and 3 are in support. The issues raised are as follows:- 1. Impact on character of historic town. 3.32 Summary of Issues Relating to Scooniehill Proposals Raised at Departure Hearing: 1. Need for countryside location for hotel and
associated development not demonstrated. PLANNING POLICY POSITION 3.33 Development Plan Individual policies are listed in an appendix to this report. The following areas of policy are relevant to this application:- • Environment and environmental impact 3.34 Government Advice A list of relevant NPPGs and PANs are included in the appendix to this report. 3.35 Landscape Impact Under the St Andrews Landscape Character Assessment the site includes the classification of ‘Open Coastal Hills’ and ‘Landward Hills’. The former is prominent in the views southwards out of St Andrews and in respect of this site is characterised by arable land with Wester Balrymonth Hill being particularly prominent and important in the landscape. From the south, again the ‘Open Coastal Hills’ are visible. However the ‘Landward Hills’ form the predominant landscape to the south of the ridge, upon which Scooniehill Steading is positioned. 3.36 Visual and Environmental Impacts The development would impact on views on the southern approach into St Andrews extending down from the ridge at Scooniehill Steading, and the bulk of the development would be seen in the same view as the existing built form of St Andrews. From St Andrews, looking south, the steading on the ridge would be replaced by the new build which would be to the same height but still visible. The existing hill slopes would change from arable to golf course. 3.37 Scale of Development Only a small proportion of the building form would occupy the steading footprint with the remainder extending down the slope. The height of buildings would not exceed that of the existing however. 3.38 Transportation The key elements of this issue have been examined through a TIA, lodged by the applicants, and are as follows:- • Generated traffic, gross number of trips, ability to
control, influence this. (A comprehensive report relating to all 3 applications is included as an appendix to this report.) 3.39 Economic Impact The economic impact would result in three areas of job creation:- • Phase 1 - construction phase 120 jobs 3.40 Sustainability The following aspects of sustainability potentially apply to the development: • it is developing a tourism resource in a way which
allows enjoyment by both residents and visitors. 3.41 Infrastructure Requirements The detailed responses from SEPA and ESW have not raised any formal objections. Capacity in the public sewerage system is not currently available and alternative measures may need to be made. 3.42 Determining Issues Having taken into account all of the matters outlined above and referred to in the attached appendices I have identified the following determining issues which are key to the eventual determination of this planning application. a) Development Plan As pointed out by the objectors and a number of consultees the proposed development is contrary to the terms of development plan policies as set out in both the Fife Structure Plan and the St. Andrews Local Plan. In particular the development involves the loss of prime agricultural land and represents development in the countryside. Furthermore, the development is proposed in an Area of Great Landscape Value. While in certain circumstances consideration can be given to the perceived benefits of individual developments which may justify a departure from development plan policies there would appear to be no significant arguments which would justify such a departure in this instance. b) Landscape Setting and Visual Impact There is no doubt whatsoever that the landscape setting of St. Andrews requires to be protected from inappropriate development. As consultees and objectors have already pointed out the environmental quality and attraction of St. Andrews is inextricably linked to its setting. Because of this it is important to examine very carefully both the visual and the landscape impacts associated with development proposals. This applies particularly to the southern slopes of the town on both sides of the A91 5. The Council’s landscape advisers have indicated that the development proposals for Scooniehill as outlined would, despite the assurances of the applicants in relation to scale, design and use of materials etc., create disruptive and discordant elements in the landscape which would have an unacceptable effect on the landscape setting of St. Andrews. c) Green Belt Issues Fife Council indicated through the St. Andrews Strategic Study an intention to consider the possibility of a green belt for St. Andrews through the review of the Fife Structure Plan. The site of this application is located within the area identified as a possible green belt. Although it is possible that sensitively designed golf courses can be accommodated in green belt areas it would seem inappropriate at this stage in advance of the Structure Plan Review to readily accept a development proposal of this nature. It is envisaged that the Draft Consultative Structure Plan will be prepared by the end of this year. d) Transport Issues On the basis of the information provided by the applicants and in the light of the advice given by the Council’s Transportation Service augmented by further specialist advice from Colin Buchanan and Partners this proposal does not in itself appear to have unacceptable or unmanageable traffic impacts for either the local road network or St. Andrews Town Centre. It is recognised that concerns were expressed at the Development Plan Hearing regarding the generation of traffic on rural roads without footpaths and the consequent implications for public safety. The latter points are capable of resolution. e) Economic Impact The applicants have indicated that some 120 jobs would be provided during the construction phase of the proposed development and up to 107 full-time equivalent jobs are claimed to emanate from the second phase of development. The applicants have also claimed that a further 112 full-time equivalent jobs would be associated with phase 3 of the development. It is necessary to treat applicants claims in relation to job creation with some caution. However, it is reasonable to assume that there will be job creation and potential economic and tourism benefits associated with the proposed development. At the Development Plan Departure Hearing the applicant intimated that 100 full-time jobs would be created. Sections 4 and 5 dealt with other applications - Kingask and Feddinch 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1. The Head of Planning is required to report to the Strategic Development Committee on 7th July. In his report he will require to make specific recommendations relating to all three planning applications described earlier in this report. Before finalising the detail of the report and recommendations to the Strategic Development Committee and in accordance with the decision of the Strategic Development Committee on 29th March the Area Development Committee must be invited to express a view on these matters. Although the Area Development Committee will not determine these applications I believe that the Committee has an important role to play in the process leading towards determination and I intend therefore to give as much information as possible in the hope that the Area Development Committee will be able to support the position I have outlined. 6.2. In dealing with applications for planning permission the Planning Authority must have regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations. All of the Development Plan issues and related matters emerging from national planning guidance, planning advice notes and other relevant policies, strategies and studies have been given very full consideration. In addition the progression of the strategic overview, which will also be presented to the Strategic Development Committee has assisted in moving towards determination of the very complex and challenging issues raised by these development proposals. In applying and interpreting planning policies and advice the Council should attempt to be reasonable and realistic. Our deliberations, and any decisions which emerge from this process, have to be made with a degree of openness and transparency and must be capable of explanation and justification. 6.3. All three planning applications have attracted a high level of public interest. As indicated earlier in this report a considerable volume of detailed consultations, comments, objections and representations have been submitted. The outcome of all of this is that we have voices and opinions recorded both in favour and against the individual applications as well as the cumulative effect of all three applications. It is fair to say that the level of objection considerably outweighs the level of support which has been indicated in favour of any or all of the developments. However, planning applications are not determined on votes cast. They are determined on the basis of the matters clearly outlined in this report. 6.4. I have to emphasise that the purpose of my report at this stage is to assist the Area Development Committee in coming to a view. All relevant background papers have been made available. Once I have the views of the Area Development Committee I would propose to finalise my detailed report and recommendations to the Strategic Development Committee. If there is any new information or factors emerge which would have a bearing on the terms of my finalised report I will make this clear to the Strategic Development Committee. 6.5. At this stage I would wish to advise the Area Development Committee that subject to the finalisation of the Strategic Overview and the views of the Area Development Committee and in the light of all of the matters outlined in this report and appendices I could not give positive support to the proposals for Scooniehill and Feddinch. In the case of the Kingask proposals I am particularly mindful of the previous land-use commitment and the report and recommendation to this Committee by my Area Planning Manager in February of this year as well as the decision of the Council to refuse planning consent. I conclude that it would be possible to support this development but only subject to an extensive and rigorous series of planning conditions designed to address concerns raised and issues identified coupled with a Section 75 Agreement to ensure that the developers deliver improvements to the local road network, an effective and enforceable Green Travel Plan, protect rights of way, enhance public footpath provision and makes provision for addressing any failure to meet the terms of the agreement. David Rae, Head of Planning Background Papers Under Section 50(d) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 the following background papers were relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. 1. Fife Structure Plan 1994 more Scooniehill Info back to Scooniehill News up to Top |